RFP_Questions_Set_2_Responses.docx

Questions and Answers Round 2

1. Section L, 3.1.3(2) “At a minimum, the Offeror shall provide a resume for each of the key individuals listed in Paragraphs 6.1.1 through 6.3.4 of the SOW.” Does USACE require the Offeror to include resumes for the CONTRACTOR Corporate Support Staff (Civil Engineer, Hydrogeologist, Cost Scheduler, and Contracts Manager)?

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

2. Section M, Page 76, Section 3.0 – Evaluation Approach, Item b, last complete sentence states: `The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques’ (emphasis added). Section M, Page 78, Section 3.1.1, Evaluation subsection, last sentence of the first paragraph states `Use of innovation (sic) technologies (emphasis added) to address hazards, waste materials at Luckey may be evaluated more favorably.’ The two sentences appear to contradict each other. Could USACE clarify whether proven techniques or innovative approaches will be evaluated more favorably?

Answer: USACE expects that "proven devices and techniques" will be utilized for many of the remedial activities that will be performed at the Luckey Site; however, the use of innovative methods for certain aspects of the work including, but not limited to, the following activities may be evaluated more favorably:

· Contaminated soil excavation and debris removal activities

· On-site management of any non-FUSRAP- contaminated soils / fill and debris

· Multi-media sampling and sample management

· Operation and maintenance (O&M) of on-site, perimeter, and off-site air monitoring systems including meteorological monitoring and fixed and portable air monitoring stations to provide early detection of potential contaminant emissions during the remedial action. • Development and implementation of site closure protocols

· In-situ and ex-situ analysis of radionuclides and chemical contaminants (including beryllium, lead, and other metals)

· Radiological and beryllium safety

· Monitor worker exposures and contamination spread

3. Volume III, Factor III – Price: Are lower-tier subcontractors required to submit information in response to paragraph 3.3.1 and 3.3.2?

Answer: No, the information required in paragraphs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 should be provided by the prime contractor only.

4. Volume III, Factor III – Price, Section J – Sample Project #2: What level of detail are lower-tier subcontractors required to submit for pricing?

Answer: Lower-tier contractors must provide pricing level detail that is commensurate with the Prime.

5. Volume I, Factor I – Technical Approach - Sub-factor 2 –Safety Approach (L. 3.1.2): Please clarify whether the requested tabulated summary of the Experience Modification Rate, the Recordable Incident Rate and the DART rate need to be provided for (1) the prime entity, (2) the prime entity and major subcontractors, or (3) the prime entity and all team subcontractors.

Answer: The prime entity and major subcontractors

6. Is there a definition for major vs. minor team subcontractors based on the anticipated value of the subcontract?

Answer: There is no definition

7. Please provide instructions as to how to register for the site visit.

Answer: Registration for the site visit is not required

8. 6.1, page 6-1 of SOW: What are the duties and qualifications of an Assistant Radiation Safety Officer (ARSO)? Is the RSO a corporate role, while the ARSO is the Site RSO?

Answer: The ARSO must have the same duties and qualifications as the RSO. The SOW has been amended to remove the ARSO as a key person.

9. 6.1.6, page 6-5 of SOW: Is the RSO described in the SOW as Key Personnel a corporate role or a field role?

Answer: The RSO described in the SOW is a field (site) role

10. 6.1.6, page 6-5 of SOW: If the RSO is a field person, (i.e. Site RSO), will USACE reconsider the requirement that the Site RSO should reasonably be expected to be a CHP? Many qualified and USACE-experienced Site RSOs do not have CHPs; many CHPs do not have extensive, recent Site RSO experience.

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

11. 6.1.9, 2nd last bullet and last bullet, page 6-7 of the SOW: There is a conflict: “The Chemist shall conduct or oversee all on site analytical testing” and “The Project Chemist shall be employed or subcontracted by the Contractor and shall not be employed by a laboratory performing analyses for this SOW”. Does USACE mean “The Project Chemist shall be employed or subcontracted by the Contractor and shall not be employed by an off-site laboratory performing analyses for this SOW”?

Answer: The last bullet, “The Project Chemist shall be employed or subcontracted by the Contractor and shall not be employed by a laboratory performing analyses for this SOW” has been deleted from the SOW. See also the response to Round 1 question 16.

12. 6.1.9, last bullet, page 6-7 of the SOW: Are all on-site labs required to be subcontracted? What about those offerors who have extensive experience self-performing this function, a significant procedural and cost benefit to USACE?

Answer: All on-site labs are not required to be subcontracted.

13. 6.1.9, 2nd last bullet, page 6-7 of the SOW: If the bidder has their own lab, can they provide their own Chemist?

Answer: Yes

14. 3.2 page 70, 2nd set of bullets, last bullet – Please explain the requirement that projects may be presented in spreadsheet or tabular format. Can we provide a narrative of each of the 5 projects?

Answer: A spreadsheet or tabular format may be used to provide the bulleted information identified in RFP Section L (3.2), page 70, 4th paragraph. A narrative of each of the five projects is allowed.

15. What facilities, if any, are available at the site? Is there power, running water, potable water, telephone, cell phone coverage, Internet?

Answer: There are no active utilities at the site. Cell phones have worked at the site during previous activities.

16. Sample Task 1, Phase II. Does USACE want the infrastructure set-up and O&M to be described for the entire site, or just the PWS defined in Sample Task II, Phase III? In other words, does Sample Task I relate to Task Order 1 (Work Plans for the entire site), or Sample Task II (just trenches 1 and 2)?

Answer: Sample Task II relates to infrastructure set-up and O&M for the entire site

17. Would USACE prefer that the contractor use their Ohio NRC license to take possession of rad-contaminated debris and soil?

Answer: An Ohio NRC license is not required

18. Does USACE have a preferred disposal facility; i.e. an established contract with preferred rates at a designated disposal facility for this contract?

Answer: The Offeror must propose a disposal facility(ies) for USACE acceptance

19. Sample Task II, Phase III repeats elements of Sample Task 1, Phase II, particularly with respect to mobilization and site set-up. Because of page limitations in the Technical Approach, would USACE agree that the discussion is needed only once in the discussion of Sample Task I?

Answer: The Offeror’s approach will be evaluated in accordance with RFP Section L (3.1), Technical Approach. The Offeror should decide the best method of presenting their technical approach.

20. Please provide Davis Bacon rates for the site area.

Answer: Wage Determination attached

21. Are there bonding requirements for this contract? If so, in what anticipated amounts?

Answer: Bonding is not required

22. Section L, 3.1.3 Volume I, Factor 1, Subfactor 3, Organization Approach/Management Plan/Quality Assurance Approach, page 68. Offer is to provide a resume for each of the personnel positions listed in Paragraphs 6.1.1 through 6.3.4 of the SOW. There are 13 positions listed. Assuming two pages per resume to address education, qualifications and 10 years of experience this would equal 26 pages of the 75 pages allowed for the entire volume. We respectfully request USACE remove the resumes from the page count.

Answer: Provide resumes for the key personnel identified in SOW sections 6.1.1 through 6.1.9. Resumes are excluded from the total page count.

23. Section L, 3.1.3 Volume I, Factor 1, Subfactor 3, Quality Assurance Approach, page 69. Reference is made to a QA Program Manager on site that has direct access to the Corporate Managers with the authority to execute the QA program requirements on-site. This person is not listed in Section 6. Contractor Project Staff Organization, Qualifications and Responsibilities. Can the USACE provide additional information on the requirements for this person and are they considered key?

Answer: The QA Program Manager is the same individual as the Construction Quality Control (CQC) System Manager identified in SOW Section 6.1.7 and UFGS 01 45 00.00 10 (3.4.1). The responsibilities and requirements of the CQC System Manager are identified in SOW Section 6.1.7.

24. Section L, 3.1.3 Volume I, Factor 1, Subfactor 1, Conceptual Approach, Schedule, page 66. The development of a schedule with all activities associated with the design, remediation, and construction activities along with supporting documentation to evaluate realism could be upwards of 12 pages of the 75 pages. We respectfully request that USACE remove the schedule from the 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.

25. Section 01 35 45.00 10, Chemical Data Quality Control, Section 1.7.1 Chemical Quality Control Officer, page 4. Are we to assume this position is the same as the Project Chemist? Please clarify.

Answer: The Project Chemist identified in SOW Section 6.1.9 is analogous with the Chemical Quality Control Officer identified in UFGS 01 35 45.00 01 (1.7.1).

26. Final Scope of Work, Section 4.3.2.5 and Figure 3, Site Features, Luckey FUSRAP Site Drawing. Beryllium and radiological contamination were detected in multiple buildings on site. Only the production building and annex are required to be demolished. Are contractors required to decontaminate FURAP contaminated material from all buildings on the site (even those not required to be demolished by this Scope of Work)?

Answer: Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2 do not require decontamination of FUSRAP contaminated material from all buildings on site.

27. Section J, Sample Problem 2 (Phase III Remediation of Disposal Trenches 1 and 2), Soil Volume Estimate and Final Scope of Work Section 4.3.3 (p. 4-7) – Organic Constituents. The SOW (4.3.3) indicates that organic contaminants are potentially present in the Luckey Soils. We understand that remediation of these VOCs is not included within the scope of work of this project. However, if we excavate soil contaminated with FUSRAP contaminants that also contain these organic constituents above regulatory levels, the presence of the organics could affect the price and pathway for disposal of the material. The volume estimates for the sample problem indicate 8,362 tons of low activity mixed waste soil. Are bidders to assume that the only RCRA contaminant in this soil is lead? If not, please provide the fraction of this waste stream (in tons) contaminated with VOCs only (in addition to low activity radiological) and the fraction contaminated with both VOCs and Lead (in addition to low activity radiological).

Answer: Offeror should assume that lead is the only contaminant that would cause it to be RCRA hazardous waste.

28. Section 6.1.6: Does USACE require a CHP on-site at all times for the entire field portion of the contract, i.e. as field personnel? As with other USACE radiological tasks, even large and complex ones, frequent visits to the site by a CHP, ample field HP support, and a CHP remote review of data provides plenty of coverage for health physics data and safety oversight.

Answer: The project team must include a CHP. This individual is not required to be on site at all times for the entire field portion of the contract. Requirements for the RSO are provided in SOW section 6.1.6.

29. For the Work Plan TO (Phase 1) and the two sample TOs (Phase II and III), can we assume that there are no annual funding limits for purposes of demonstrating our project approach?

Answer: Yes

30. For Sample Project #2, the RFP provides soil volume estimates for each soil categorization but does not mention debris. Are we to assume we will not encounter debris and only need to price soil volumes? Also, this table indicates that the in-situ volume for non-hazardous waste soil is 6,070 CY…can you explain the contaminants in this non-hazardous soil (i.e., does it contain traces of FUSRAP waste or Beryllium)? Is the 42,568 CY provided in sample project #2 the expected waste or excavated volumes, i.e., should we assume this 42,568 CY is all contaminated requiring off-site disposal?

Answer: 1) The volumes provided in Sample Project #2 may include debris disposed in trenches 1 and 2

2) Non-hazardous soil would contain beryllium above the site clean-up goals

3) 42,568 CY is the estimated in situ volume requiring off-site disposal

31. Will the Offeror have right of way to off-site properties to provide laybacks for the excavation area (Trench 1) and are we allowed to work outside of the property limits?

Answer: Access agreements will be available for off-site properties, as needed, at the time a remediation task order is awarded. Offer should assume access will be available to all example remediation work areas shown on the figure in Sample Project #2.

32. Volume I, Factor I, Sub-factor 1 – Conceptual Approach on page 66 of the RFP indicates: “This sub-factor evaluates the Offeror’s conceptual approach specific to this IDIQ SATOC based on the Offerors proposed team and the proposed team’s expertise to meet the requirements of the Work Plan TO and the two Sample Task TO PWS. Later that same paragraph indicates: “The proposal shall address the Offeror’s proposed conceptual approach to Luckey Soils Remediation….” The SOW includes elements, such as monitoring wells (paragraph 5.2.4—Monitoring Wells (page 42)) that are not included in any of the three task order WBS elements, but will need to be addressed during excavation due to the proximity of existing wells to the excavation footprint. Please clarify if your intent is for us to just respond to the SOW elements defined in the three task order WBS elements or if you want us to address everything addressed in the entire SOW, whether reflected in the task orders or not.

Answer: Offeror should respond to the SOW elements defined in Section J (Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2). WBS 331XX0204 (Monitoring Wells) is not required in these SOW elements.

33. Is it permissible to modify the T&D volumes stipulated in Sample Project #2 to reduce volumes via waste minimization strategies and alter volumes / weight breakdown listed on the Soil Volume Estimate?

Answer: Yes, USACE will consider waste minimization strategies that reduce volumes requiring off-site disposal.

34. Should we assume that all soil within Trenches 1 and 2 (including the 6,070 CY of non-hazardous soil) are radiologically impacted and require MARSSIM Final Status Surveys for release?

Answer: MARSSIM Final Status Surveys are required in addition to verification that beryllium and lead clean-up goals have been met.

35. Is it required to achieve ELAP accreditation for the laboratory within the Phase II period of performance?

Answer: All laboratories providing definitive data must be DoD ELAP accredited. These laboratories must be identified in the SAP. See UFGS 01 35 45.00 10 (1.6.1) for additional information.

36. For the Phase III Sample Project #2, please confirm whether or not MARSSIM Final Status Survey and confirmation sampling is required for radiological constituents, lead, and beryllium (per the requirements of the FSS Plan in SOW item 5.1.2.10), and if so, what WBS item those costs should be included in the sample project.

Answer: See response to question 34. The WBS items applicable to Final Status Surveys and lead/beryllium sampling and analysis are identified in SOW Section 5.

37. Can you confirm whether 10 CFR 850 requirements are applicable to all tasks under the WP TO and two sample TOs, i.e., are all activities identified under the SOW considered operations? Will subcontractors (transporters and disposal facilities), and will they need to have a Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program in place?

Answer: SOW Section 5.1.2.3 and Appendix B provide CBDPP requirements for all on-site activities.

38. Does the Offeror need to address SOW elements not included in the WBS elements identified in the three task orders?

Answer: Offeror should address all WBS elements identified in Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2 (Section J). The choice to include other WBS elements not identified in Section J is a decision the Offeror should make when describing their technical approach.

39. The Radiological Safety Officer position description (paragraph 6.1.6 of the SOW, page 6-5) requires the RSO to have specialty training in “nuclear criticality safety” if not a CHP. Please explain why this training would be required for the contaminants expected at the Luckey site.

Answer: The RSO is not required to have specialty training in nuclear criticality safety. 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.”

40. Paragraph 5.3.1 of the SOW (Clearing and Grubbing, page 5-3) indicates that the contractor is “required to clear and grub the delineated contaminated areas on the site in accordance with Appendix B (UFGS Section 31 11 00).” Are the delineated contaminated areas just Trench 1 and 2 or the entire site?

Answer: The Offeror’s proposal should consider clearing and grubbing of contaminated areas at trenches 1 and 2.

41. PWS, Subsection 6.1.9. The Project Chemist position description appears to be in conflict with typical USACE chemical quality control which requires a level of independence from site operations. The terms “hands on management” implies an on-site operations position, where the terms “verification” and “data validation” implies a chemical quality control role. Is it the USACE’s intent that the Project Chemist fulfills an operations role or a quality control function?

Answer: The Project Chemist will fulfill a quality control function; see response to Round 1, question #16.

42. Section J, Sample Project #2. Are soil volume estimates inclusive of debris waste volumes?

Answer: See response to question 30

43. In order to effectively assess site conditions and reflect them into the technical approach, it would be very helpful if the USACE could post the .mxd native files for several of the drawings in the RFP. Specifically, could the USACE provide the .mxd files for Figures 3, 4, and 5 from Appendix A of the Scope of Work.

Answer: Due to potential ArcGIS version issues (i.e. 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2.2) all project geospatial information, and relational database, will be provided to the successful Offeror.

44. Section J, Item 12 states that “rights for the use of the work areas under the contract have been obtained and the general limits of the areas are shown on the contract drawings.” Figures 4 and 5 show contamination potentially going outside of what is defined as the Site Property Boundary, to the east of the site. This is also similarly reflected in Figure 1 to Sample Project #2, although this figure also includes an “Example Remediation Work Area” boundary which extends at least 50 feet to the east of the site boundary. To address the remediation defined in Sample Project #2, are the Offeror’s to assume that the USACE has or will be obtaining the rights to work outside the site boundary, within this “Remediation Work Area” in support of remediation? Additionally, the work area reflected in Sample Project #2 does not appear to be consistent with item 3.4.1.4 of Specification 02 61 13, which states that “sloped excavations shall not encroach onto off-site properties…” Please clarify.

Answer: Access agreements will be available for off-site properties within remediation work areas at the time a remediation task order is awarded. UFGS 02 61 13 (3.4.1.4) has been revised as follows: “Sloped excavations must not extend beyond safe working distances from existing structures, utilities, stockpiles, and work area boundaries.”

45. Section J, Appendix B, UFGS Specification 02 81 00 for Transportation and Disposal of Hazardous Materials, discusses notification requirements to the USACE in Item 3.2. On page 9 of this specification, notification a minimum of seven calendar days prior to “the scheduled shipment” seems to imply that this notification is for any and all waste shipments off site. However, on page 10 of this specification, it states that “shipping documents shall be submitted to the USACE COR for review and acceptance a minimum of seven (7) calendar days prior to the first (emphasis added) shipment of waste.” Please clarify what the specific notification requirement is, since this will impact container and storage needs. Additionally, after the first shipment, how much time will the USACE require to review and approve manifests for wastes shipped under the same profiles to the same disposal sites?

Answer: The seven day notification requirement applies to each waste shipment. UFGS 02 81 00 (3.2) has been revised as follows; “Ensure that each waste shipment is accompanied by properly completed shipping documents. Shipping documents shall be submitted to the USACE COR for review and acceptance a minimum of seven (7) calendar days prior to the shipment of waste.”

46. Regarding PART 3 EXECUTION 3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Section 02 81 00, Page 7, “Disposal of radioactively contaminated materials from the site shall only occur at facilities licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State, or at facilities permitted by a Federal or state regulator to accept radioactive materials in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.” Regarding off-site waste disposition associated with Sample Project #2 (and the entire project), would the USACE allow the use of the State of Tennessee’s Bulk Survey for Free Release (BSFR) program for disposition of LARW soil and subsequent conditional release to TN Class I industrial landfills for final disposal given the long-term CERCLA liability associated with disposition of materials in a TN Class I Industrial Landfill?

Answer: The Offeror must propose a disposal facility(ies) for USACE acceptance. Landfills that meet the waste acceptance criteria and all regulatory approvals are acceptable.

47. Regarding PART 3 EXECUTION 3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Section 02 81 00, Page 7 – Will the USACE provide the Engineering Circular referenced in the 4th paragraph of this section – “EC 200-1-3, Off-Site Disposal of Materials from the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program”? We cannot find the EC on-line via the USACE library sites.

Answer: EC 200-1-3, “Off-Site Disposal of Materials from the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program” was replaced by EP-200-1-2 “PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR SHIPPING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS”. UFGS 02 81 00 (3.1) has been revised as follows, “The contractor shall comply with the notification requirements of the “Off-Site Rule,” found in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300.440) and as described in EP 200-1-2, Process and Procedures for Shipping Hazardous Waste and Other Hazardous Materials.”

48. Section J, last paragraph of Section 4.3.2.4 indicates that two water supply wells are located on the Luckey site. Are one or both of these wells available to the contractor for use during remediation?

Answer: Currently, the water supply wells do not have power and functioning pumps. For purposes of the proposal, assume that one of the water supply wells can be used for non-potable uses.

49. Section J, fifth bullet in Item 5 references potential asbestos contamination in reference to the demolition of buildings, structures, foundations, and utilities. Is the USACE aware of any asbestos contamination which could affect the soils remediation activities? If so, please clarify.

Answer: USACE is not aware of any asbestos contamination that would affect the soils remediation activity

50. Section J, Item 5.1.4.1 states that “the contractor shall provide site security…” and “shall permit only authorized personnel to access the work area(s)”. Would the current property owner be required to comply with the security measures that the contractor would put in place?

Answer: The security measures apply to the property owner insofar as they are not allowed access to any of the equipment/facilities brought on site by the Contractor, and they are not allowed to enter active work areas for safety reasons without first coordinating with USACE and the Contractor. Otherwise as the site property owner they cannot be restricted from accessing the site.

51. It appears from the Luckey Soils Record of Decision that there is a wetland area directly to the south of the trench area on site. Please clarify whether the Trench 1 and 2 remediation activities defined in Sample Project #2 are expected to infringe on this wetland area, and/or provide a drawing showing the wetland boundaries.

Answer: Remediation activities at trenches 1 and 2 may infringe on the emergent wetland described in the ROD, a drawing showing the wetland boundaries is not available. All remediated areas must be restored to pre-existing conditions.

52. Both the overall scope of work (i.e., in Section 5) and the scope of work for Sample Project #2 require the “decommissioning, installation, and development of groundwater monitoring wells”. It appears from the Luckey Groundwater Record of Decision that not all existing monitoring wells will continue to be used as a part of the future groundwater monitoring program. Please clarify which monitoring wells will require replacement if they are to be removed as a part of the remediation effort.

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

53. Section L, Item 3.1.2 of states that “one of the Offeror’s existing Accident Prevention Plans (APP) prepared within the last three years from the date of this Request for Proposal” is to be submitted as part of the Corporate Safety and Health Program. Although the RFP clearly supports the Offeror’s use of equivalency through DOE work, the uniqueness of the APP as a USACE document does not support such DOE equivalency because DOE remediation work does not require an APP type document. The content in the APP is contained in several stand-alone documents. Accordingly, is it acceptable to use an APP from a major teaming partner to satisfy the subject APP request? If not, can contractors performing on DOE contracts submit our ES&H documents with a cross-reference matrix showing the areas covered within the DOE vs. APP formats.

Answer: Yes

54. Section J, Item 2.0 of Sample Project #2 details the Scope of Services associated with the remediation of disposal trenches 1 and 2. This section provides a bulletized listing of the activities, prefaced with the statement that the “work under this PWS includes, but is not limited to, the following activities.” Section 3 further defines the process for pricing these activities, and Section 4 provides the associated work breakdown structure (WBS). If, in developing the approach to the remediation of disposal trenches 1 and 2, the Offeror identifies an activity/innovation that does not fit within any of the bulleted activities in this section, can a new task and associated WBS element be added, consistent with the HTRW Remedial Action WBS and Data Dictionary provided in Attachment 4 of the RFP?

Answer: Yes

55. Section J, Attachment B, SECTION 01 57 23, TEMPORARY STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL, Section 1.1 SUMMARY, states “The work consists of implementing the storm water pollution prevention measures to prevent sediment from entering streams or water bodies as specified in this Section in conformance with the requirements of Section 01 57 20.00 10 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, and the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Section 01 57 20.00 10 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION is not provided in SOW Attachment B. Please provide the referenced specification or delete the reference, thank you.

Answer: The reference to UFGS 01 57 20.00 10 has been removed. UFGS 01 57 23 (1.1 SUMMARY) is revised as follows, “The work consists of implementing storm water pollution prevention measures to prevent sediment from entering streams or water bodies as specified in this Section and the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).”

56. Will the USACE consider excluding resumes from the pages counted?

Answer: See response to question 22

57. Section J, Appendix B, CELRB Beryllium Exposure Standard Variance Letter, Item 3.g states “Occupational exposure monitoring for contamination on the project will include Beryllium by NIOSH methods 7300 or 7301 and NIOSH method 7704”. Both types of analyses are destructive analyses. Is it USACE’s intention that two separate analyses are to be conducted for beryllium exposure (i.e., 7300 and 7704)?

Answer: Yes

58. Section J, Item 6.1, paragraph 3. This requirement states that all 9 of the key personnel shall be present on-site for the duration of the Task Order execution. This would require that positions such as the Program Manager (PgM), the Safety and Health (S&H) Manager, and the Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) be on site along with the Project Management, the Site Safety and Health Officer, and the Assistant Radiation Safety Officer. Is it the USACE intent that we staff all of these positions on a full-time basis at the Luckey site for the duration of the Task Order (i.e., mobilization and remediation activities), or can the Program Manager and SME positions such as the S&H Manager and the RSO be staffed on-site to the extent necessary to perform their assigned responsibilities?

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”.

59. Reference page 67 of RFP. Volume I, Factor I, Corporate Safety and Health:

3. The Table of Contents for the corporate Safety and Health Program, including a list of standard operating procedures.

QUESTION: Would it be possible to provide the TOC for the Corporate Health and Safety Program (and list of SOPs) as part of Volume I Appendix and exclude from the Volume I page count?

Answer: No

60. Reference page 67 of RFP. Volume I, Factor I, Accident Summary:

1. A copy of the Corporate OSHA 300 logs and 300-A forms.

QUESTION: Does the RFP require 300-A forms instead of summaries?

Documentation of EMR rates assigned by each firm’s insurance provider:

QUESTION: Would it be possible to provide our Insurance provider’s EMR Letter as part of Volume I Appendix and exclude from the Volume I page count?

Answer: 1) Provide Corporate OSHA 300 logs and 300-A forms

2) The Offeror’s EMR letter from their insurance provider may be provided as part of the Volume I Appendix and excluded from the page count.

61. Reference page 69 of RFP. Volume I, Factor I, A total compensation plan for professional employees:

QUESTION: Would it be possible to provide our total compensation plan for professional employees as part of Volume I Appendix and exclude from the Volume I page count?

Answer: The total compensation plan for professional employees will be part of the cost volume and provided in Volume III.

62. Reference page 6-2 and 6-5 of SOW. 6.1, Key Personnel:

QUESTION: Can a Corporate HP act as the CIH for this work?

Answer: Yes, as long as the Corporate HP is also a CIH

63. Reference the following Section J Tasks:

Task Order 001: Phase I – Develop Remediation Work Plans Sample Project #1: Phase II – Infrastructure, Operations, and Maintenance Sample Project #2: Phase III – Remediation of Disposal Trenches 1 and 2 QUESTION: When combined, how many years will Phase I, II, and III cover?

Answer: The duration for Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2 should be identified on the Offeror’s schedule.

64. Reference page 72 of RFP. Volume III, Factor III Price, 3.3.2 Additional Information, (3) The Completion of Section K of the Solicitation (Reps & Certs).

QUESTION: Will subs need to submit Reps & Certs?

Answer: No