RFP_Questions_Set_3_Responses_ernest_23_dec.docx
DOCX document 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Luckey FUSRAP Remediation
- Solicitation number
- W912P4-14-R-0002
About this file
Q As round 3.
View the file
Other files
Show all 40
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions and Answers Round 3
1. In the SOW, several optional documents; Sections 5.1.2.13 Engineering Survey (Optional) and 5.1.2.14 Demolition Plan (Optional), are listed in the SOW but are not specifically listed in the Task Order 001, Phase I Submittal register. Is the contract to price these items as part of CLIN 0001 Phase I – Develop Remediation Work Plans, or add a separate LS price for the optional items?
Answer: CLIN 0001 Phase I – Develop Remediation Work Plans does not include the optional Engineering Survey (SOW Section 5.1.2.13) and Demolition Plan (SOW Section 5.1.2.14). These optional items should not be included in the Offerors proposals and pricing should not be submitted for them.
2. Since FUSRAP projects of the magnitude and complexity of Luckey generally have periods of performance exceeding 3 years, would USACE consider allowing bidders to submit an APP/SSHP developed in the last 5 years?
Answer: Yes
3. Section 3.7.1.2 (Chemically-Contaminated Soils/Fill/Debris) of the Scope of Work states that excavated material that does not contain FUSRAP-contaminants above the cleanup goals listed in Table 2.2.2 but contains chemical contaminants above the criteria listed in Table 2.2.1 shall be managed as chemically-contaminated soil / fill / debris. Section 3.7.1.2 further indicates the Site Owner and/or Ohio EPA is responsible for any additional handling and disposal of this material, and that ‘this SOW does not include additional handling and disposal of chemically--contaminated soil/fill.’ Please clarify for the purposes of the sample project how USACE wants its contractor to manage this material on site – i.e., stockpile it and if so where and in what configuration, will stockpiles be covered, who is responsible for managing stockpiles, can it be used as on-site backfill material?”
Answer: Offerors should describe their approach to on-site management of chemically-contaminated materials, if encountered, in the proposal’s technical approach. The Contractor must safely manage any chemically-contaminated soil/fill/debris so that it does not interfere with site remediation activities or result in the release or spread of contamination. The final disposition of these materials will be determined jointly by USACE, Ohio EPA, and the site owner.
UFGS 02 61 13 (3.7.1.2) has been revised as follows; “Chemically-contaminated soil/fill/debris must be safely managed so that it does not interfere with site remediation activities or result in the release or spread of contamination.”
4. The “Placeback Standard” levels (Attachment UFGS 02 61 13 Page 6 [pg 216 of the SOW]) are higher than the cleanup level goals for Ra226, U234, U238 and Th230. Please reconfirm these values are correct.? The footnote says that these levels are the cleanup plus the average background. It would appear that the cleanup goals and the placeback goals might be the same?
Answer: The Ra226, Th230, U234, and U238 placeback standards listed in UFGS 02 61 13 Table 2.2-1 represent the FUSRAP Cleanup Goals (SOW Section 4.3.1) plus average background concentrations. The placeback standard for these elements is the same as the FUSRAP Cleanup Goals.
5. To ensure equity amongst bidders for waste disposal, will bidders be using USACE pre-negotiated rates for disposal of radioactive and mixed waste?
Answer: USACE will not be using pre-negotiated rates for disposal of radioactive and mixed waste.
6. Are bidders responsible for moving/relocating stored waste currently on-site if required for Sample Projects 1 and 2?
Answer: Currently there is no waste stored onsite.
7. Can you confirm the frequency and type of USACE QA samples desired? Will the contractor be responsible for shipping costs and can the USACE identify the name and location of the government QA lab?
Answer: 1) If QA samples are required, the analyses will be separate from this contract. USACE may ask the Contractor to fill QA sample containers. If required, the expected frequency is 1 sample per every 20 collected.
2) The contractor is responsible for the shipping costs of all of their required samples. QA samples required by USACE would be shipped at the Government’s expense.
3) USACE’s current lab contracts are with RTI Laboratories and Pace Analytical Services.
8. Is the east well operable and available for contractor use?
Answer: The east well is not operable and may be available for use by the Contractor.
9. Is there a source of potable water at the site?
Answer: There is no source of potable water at the site.
10. Will an AIHA certified laboratory be required for breathing zone samples?
Answer: Yes
11. Reference SOW, Page 1-1, Section 1.1 Contract Award:
The contract will include a five-year base period and one five-year option period in accordance with (IAW) DFARS 217.204. The combined period of performances of Phase 1, 2 and 3 is four years.
QUESTION: What activities will take place in year 5?
Answer: The sample task orders are provided for evaluation purposes only. The base contract may include performance for up to 10 years. However, the individual period of performances on the task orders will vary from task order to task order.
12. Reference Section J, Task Order 001, Phase I, Page 2, Section 5.0 Period of Performance:
“The period of performance for this task order shall be one (1) year from the notice to proceed.”
QUESTION: If Phase I is completed prior to the stated (1) year of Period of Performance, can Phase II scope begin?
Answer: Yes, however only Phase I will be awarded with the base contract.
13. Reference Section J, Sample Project #1, Phase II, Page 3, Section 5.0 Period of Performance:
“The period of performance for this task order shall be one (1) year from the notice to proceed.”
QUESTION: If Phase II is completed prior to the stated (1) year of Period of Performance, can Phase III scope begin?
Answer: Yes, however only Phase I will be awarded with the base contract.
14. General Question:
QUESTION: In an effort to assure staff, labor and equipment are used efficiently; the need for out-year planning is critical. With that stated, at what point during the first five year contract will the balance of scope be issued for the second five year option?
Answer: Individual task orders for remediation of separate portions of the site will be awarded on the basis of remediation progress and funding availability. It is anticipated that a decision to exercise the second five-year option will not be made until the 4th or 5th year of the base contract.
15. Reference SOW Attachment 3 Contaminated Soil Volume Estimate Summary, Pages 5 & 6:
QUESTION: Given the probability of contamination in an ICSM can and often does vary from grid point to grid point, combined with the fact that the in situ construction soil volume estimate includes removal of uncontaminated overburden to access contaminated soils, where is the potentially clean cutback soil located?
Answer: Estimates of place back soils are provided in Figure 4 and Table 1 of SOW Attachment 3: Volume Estimate Summary. Table 1 of Attachment 3 has been renamed, “Luckey Soil Volume, Transportation, and Disposal Estimates”´
16. Reference SOW, Page 4-4, Section 4.3.2.2 Disposal Pits/Diked Disposal Area, and Reference SOW Attachment 3 Contaminated Soil Volume Estimate Summary, Page 6, and Reference SOW Attachment 3 Contaminated Soil Volume Estimate Summary, Figures 3, 4, & 5:
· Figure 3 indicates the approximate footprint of trenches 1 and 2
· Figure 4 indicates the lateral extent of soils immediately adjacent to trenches 1 and 2
· Figure 5 indicates the depths of contaminated soils immediately adjacent to trenches 1 and 2
· Trenches 1 and 2 are surrounded by soils not included in Phase III scope. During the excavation of trenches 1 and 2, sloping and stepping back will be necessary as the depth increases to the estimated 16 – 18 bgs level. The southeastern perimeter of Trench 2 and the Midwesterner perimeter of Trench 1 will become the same due to sloping/stepping activities.
· The distance between Trench 3 and Trench 2 is approximately 30 ft.
QUESTION: Are we permitted to excavate inside the eastern portion of Trench 3 during Trench 2 excavation scope2?
Answer: Yes
17. Reference SOW, Page 5-16, Section 5.1.4.1 Site Security:
“The CONTRACTOR shall provide site security including all equipment, temporary facilities, manpower, and control of access into and out of the site (including subcontractors).
QUESTIONS:
| a. | When does the responsibility to provide site security begin, with notice of award or once all Phase 1 scope is completed? |
| b. | Please define when responsibility for site security begins. |
| Answer: | The responsibility for site security will begin at the onset of field activities associated with Sample Project #1 (i.e. mobilization, setup, installation, and construction of all equipment, facilities, site infrastructure, environmental controls, and monitoring equipment required to implement the work). |
18. Section 4.3.2.2: The SOW gives a brief description of Trenches 2 and 7, but nothing on Trench 1. Please provide information on Trench 1.
Answer: Information on Trench 1 is provided in the RI report.
19. RFP Section L.3.1.1: Please define in situ and ex situ analysis. Does this refer to groundwater, or on-site/off-site lab?
Answer: In situ refers to the analysis of a sample in place. Ex situ refers to the physical removal of a sample and analysis at an on-site or off-site laboratory.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .