Draft RFP Questions and Answers 07 Apr 2020.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted Apr 7, 2020

Attached to: Luckey Remediation Services
Solicitation number: W912P420R0004
Issued by: Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Engineering District Buffalo

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 27, 2023

This document includes a draft solicitation and presolicitation notice for remediation services at the Luckey site in Ohio. Key details include the following. The solicitation is for excavation, transport, and disposal of contaminated soil, sediment, and materials from the 40-acre Luckey site. Additional required services are site maintenance, security, project management, quality control, work planning, engineering design, monitoring, water management, well decommissioning, sampling, and restoration. Contaminants of concern include beryllium, lead, and various radionuclides. The current incumbent is North Wind Portage. Comments on the draft solicitation are due by March 5, 2020. USACE expects to release the final RFP in late April 2020.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Attachment 1_Performance Work Statement.pdf	PDF	Feb 20, 2020
Attachment 10_Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf	PDF	Feb 20, 2020
DRAFT Solicitation W912P420R0004.pdf	PDF	Feb 20, 2020
Attachment 9_Sample Letter of Commitment to Use Subcontractor.docx	DOCX document	Feb 20, 2020
Attachment 7_Bid Schedule.pdf	PDF	Feb 20, 2020
Attachment 8_WBS Spreadsheet.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Feb 20, 2020

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

Question Number	Questions	Responses
1	Reference the SF33 form and page 40 of the draft solicitation document. The draft solicitation indicates proposals will be due less than four weeks from site visit. This is an extremely aggressive schedule for a proposal of this size and complexity. Please consider providing a minimum six weeks from site visit to proposal due date.	There will be no site visit. The current plan is to have a pre-proposal conference. The date and format is currently TBD and will be finalized when the RFP is issued. It is likely the RFP won't be issued until May. The RFP will be revised to provide a minimum of six weeks from the pre-proposal conference to proposal due date.
2	Reference the draft solicitation document pages 40 and 41. In the interest of reducing paper usage and being environmentally responsible, we request that USACE accept electronic proposal submittal (no hard copies).	The RFP will be revised to require one hard copy and one electronic copy.
3	Reference the draft solicitation document pages 40 and 41. In the interest of reducing paper usage five hard copies of Volumes I and II (10 binders and 10 CDs), seems excessive. Please consider reducing the number of hard copies required.	The RFP will be revised to require one hard copy and one electronic copy.
4	Reference the draft solicitation document pages 40 and 41. Please clarify this bullet "One CD shall be included in each 3-ring binder for each volume." Is the Government requesting a complete CD with each binder?	The RFP will be revised to require one hard copy and one electronic copy.
5	Reference the draft solicitation document page 42. Given the large number of CDs that the Government is requesting, please delete the requirement that digital files must be Word searchable in PDF format.	All digital files must be word searchable in PDF format.
6	Reference the draft solicitation document page 42. The draft solicitation states double sided printing is preferred. Please delete the preference for double sided printing as it significantly hinders efficient proposal production.	The requirement for double-sided printing is mandatory.
7	Reference the draft solicitation document page 40. We request that the font requirement for tables and illustrations be no less than 8 pt. Vs. 10 pt. Times New Roman.	The font size requirement identified in the draft RFP is mandatory.
8	Reference the draft solicitation document page 40. We request that the proposal text 12-point or larger font size be changed to no smaller than 11-point.	The font size requirement identified in the draft RFP is mandatory.
9	Reference the draft solicitation document page 40. Please confirm that the requirement for 1-inch margins excludes content within headers and footers.	The requirement for 1 inch margins excludes content with headers and footers.
10	Reference the draft solicitation document page 40. If headers and footers are not excluded from the 1-inch margin requirement, please consider doing so as between the font size published and this, there won't be much room for content.	The requirement for 1 inch margins excludes content with headers and footers.
11	Reference the draft solicitation page 43. There are a very few large-scale ($10M) beryllium projects that have been set-aside for small businesses. Therefore, the requirement for no more than five large-scale projects for remediation and handling of beryllium where the small business has self-performed a large percentage of the work would seem to significantly limit the competitive field. Please reconsider the past performance requirement as currently stated to encourage competition. For example, the previous RFP required "Large-scale construction remediation involving multiple activities to include decontamination, shoring, water management and wastewater processing, excavation and handling of beryllium, lead, and radionuclide impacted soils and debris."	The mandatory requirement for beryllium will be modified. The Past Performance evaluation factor will be modified in the final RFP. However, other language within the solicitiation will be modified to state beryllium experience may be rated more favorably.
12	Reference the draft solicitation pages 43 and 44. We request that previously completed PPQs be accepted in lieu of requiring new ones.	Previously completed PPQs will be accepted. A PPQ will be required for all projects, regardless if an evaluation has been completed for those projects. No CPARS or PPIRS evaluations need to be submitted.
13	Reference the draft solicitation pages 42 and 43. While the draft solicitation allows for team subcontractor past performance projects, it does not address how these will be evaluated. Will team subcontractor projects be weighed equally to those of the prime contractor? If they are not to be weighed equally, how will they be evaluated?	Prime Contractor past performance projects may be rated more favorably than subcontractor projects.
14	Reference the draft solicitation page 43. Will a contractor who provides less than five past performance examples that meet the relevancy and recency requirement be given less credit than a contractor who provides exactly five examples?	There is no formula to determine relevancy, recency, and confidence ratings. Just because one offeror submits 5 examples and one offeror submits 3 examples, does not automatically mean the offeror that submitted 5 examples will be rated with a higher confidence level.
15	Reference the draft solicitation page 43. Would the Government consider establishing a range, e.g. minimum of three, no more than five past performance examples, that would result in contractors being evaluated equally?	No. See reponse to Question 14.
16	Reference the draft solicitation page 43. Please clarify the following statement. "Due to the requirements involved with remediating beryllium, all examples submitted by offerors shall demonstrate recent and relevant past performance with remediation and handling of beryllium." Is the Government stating that all projects must include beryllium remediation and beryllium handling? Or is the Government stating that all projects must include remediation, and beryllium handling?	See reponse to Question 11.
17	Reference the draft solicitation pages 43 and 44. Reference past performance example requirements. Our interpretation of what the Government is requesting is a cover page and a CPARS/PPQ for each project. Are we correct that the Government does not want any detailed description of each project (only the 200-word description)? If this is an incorrect assumption, how many pages per project can be provided in addition to the one-page cover page and the CPARS/PPQ?	This will be updated in the final RFP.
18	Reference the draft solicitation page 44. Is it acceptable to set up the past performance example information (a)-(l) on the cover page as a table?	Yes
19	Reference the draft solicitation page 41. Please confirm that all Volume I content (Factor 1 Past Performance Tab A and Tab B Safety Performance) has no page count limitation.	A page count for Tab A will be added. Tab B will have no page count.
20	Reference the draft solicitation page 46. Volume II Tab B Staffing Plan first sentence. The requirement to describe "relevant experience of each project member" infers that resumes are desired yet there is no requirement for resumes anywhere in the solicitation. Are resumes required? If so, are they not included in the page count? Is there a page limitation per resume?	Resumes are not required. The language in the RFP will be revised.
21	Reference the draft solicitation pages 45 and 46. Volume II Tab A - Detailed Technical Approach regarding explanation of offeror's estimate, assumptions, etc. This information is usually required as a basis of estimate document within the cost volume. Please consider making this a requirement for Volume III Cost given the limited page count allotted for Volume II Tab A Technical Approach.	This will not be changed.
22	Reference the draft solicitation page 46 Volume II Tab B. "Organizational chart clearly showing…labor mix, and numbers of personnel." Please confirm that it will be acceptable to include this information in a table within the Technical Approach should we determine that is the most effective way to communicate.	It is acceptable to include this information in a table within the Technical Approach.
23	Reference the draft solicitation pages 46 and 47. Please clarify whether Volume III (Factor 3) - Cost/Price description proposal requirements apply only to the prime contractor or do they also apply to team subcontractors as well?	Volume III (Factor 3) - Cost/Price requirements apply to team subcontractors.
24	Reference the draft solicitation page 47. If the offerors last audit of their accounting system is greater than three years old, can the offeror indicate whether their system is still the same as that audited (as you know, DCAA is way behind in performing timely audits)?	Yes
25	Reference the draft solicitation page 47. If we have an EVMS that has been utilized on projects, but it has not been approved by the Cognizant Federal Agency, is that acceptable?	Yes, but offerors must demonstrate how it complies with EVMS standards. RFP will be revised.
26	Reference the draft solicitation page 47. If we do not have a Cognizant Federal Agency approved EVMS and thus must develop a comprehensive plan for compliance, could it be developed so as to be less stringent than the guidance of ANSI/EIA 748?	Yes, but offerors must demonstrate how it complies with EVMS standards. RFP will be revised.
27	Reference the draft solicitation page 42. In what volume is the certified copy of their Joint Venture agreement to be put? Also, please confirm it does not go against page count.	Provide a certified copy of the Joint Venture Agreement in Volume 4. It will not go against the page count.
28	Reference the draft solicitation page 53. Section M Volume II Tab B Technical Approach. Regarding the last sentence, "The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed methods and approach satisfies the requirement." We do not understand how this is part of the staffing plan evaluation given Section L requirements for inclusion in this tab. Should it read that the Government will assess the extent to which the offerors organizational approach and personnel satisfies the requirement.	The RFP will be revised to include the proposed language.
29	Reference the draft solicitation page 55. 6.0 Basis for Award. Please confirm that "all technical factors when combined" refers to Factor 1 - Past Performance and Factor 2 - Technical Approach combined.	Confirmed, this language will be revised to make it more clear.
30	Reference the draft solicitation page 43. Past performance example project PPQ forms are provided in "Attachment 10" not Attachment 2 as stated in the draft solicitation.	The RFP will be revised to reference Attachment 10.
31	Page 52, Section 3.0 Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria, Volume I (Factor 1) - Past Performance. Recommend deleting favorable ratings for JV's or Prime/Sub relationships who have worked together as many Prime/Sub or JV relationships who have not worked together can bring strong performance.	This will not be deleted.
32	Page 7; 20 CFR is used instead of 29 CFR. Please confirm.	There is no mention of 20 CFR on page 7.
33	Please define both Mishap and Near Miss? There are different reporting requirements for each.	Each term is defined in 385-1-1.

Mishap: An unplanned, undesired event that occurs during the course of activity being performed. The term “mishap” includes accidents, incidents and near-misses.

Near-Miss: A mishap resulting in no personal injury and zero property damage, but given a shift in time or position, damage or injury may have occurred (e.g., a worker falls off a scaffold and is not injured; a crane swings around to move his load and narrowly misses a parked vehicle).

Detailed reporting requirements are outlined within EM 385-1-1 Section 01.D.05

34	On pricing sheet, several of the CLINs for waste T&D are listed as FFP CLINs, but the text says the Government will pay at the negotiated rate and provides estimated quantities. Calling the CLIN as FFP and then discussing the payment as tied to rates seems inconsistent. Perhaps these are Fixed Unit Prices?	They are fixed unit prices. This will be cleared up in the revised RFP.
35	Instruction on "Cost/Price Proposal" under (3) Volume III (Factor 3) - Cost/Price refers to the Bid Schedule as Attachment 3. The file provided as part of the bid package is Attachment 7. Please confirm attachment number/name.	Attachment 7 Bid Schedule. Correction to be made in the final RFP.
36	Instruction on "Cost/Price Proposal" under (3) Volume III (Factor 3) - Cost/Price refers to the WBS Spreadsheet as Attachment 4. The file provided as part of the bid package is Attachment 8. Please confirm attachment number/name.	Attachment 7 Bid Schedule. Correction to be made in final RFP.
37	Please provide the Bid schedule as an editable Excel file.	The final RFP will include a bid schedule as an editable Excel file.
38	Which CLIN should laboratory set-up and certification be priced under?	Lab set-up and certification costs should be under Mobilization and Prepatory Work. Lab operating costs should be under different CLINs (line 331XX02).
39	Are the costs of items listed as "leased" in Section 7.1 covered by the Government? If not, please provide the cost that should be included in the proposal pricing.	No, they are not covered by the Government. Each offeror will need to establish the price of these leased items.
40	Has USACE prepared excavation designs that define the OSHA-compliant excavations referenced in Section 7.2.4.1.1 of the PWS and listed as 6,082 bank yards in Table 1 of the Volume Estimate Summary? If so, please provide. Is excavated material that meets the clean-up criteria allowed to be used as on-site backfill, or are there other requirements for backfill (e.g. geotechnical)?	USACE has not prepared excavation designs that define OSHA-compliant work. The volumes provided in the Soil Volume Estimate account for cut-back (2H:1V).

Soil that meets the clean-up criteria and geotechnical requirements can be used as backfill. It must not contain other non-FUSRAP contaminants that have been identified in the RI (i.e. VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, and inorganics). Specification 02 61 13 will be revised to identify place back criteria.

41	Section 7.2.8.2 requires engineering surveys before, during, and after the work. What frequency and extent of surveys are required during the work?	Refer to guide specifications 01 35 13.43.10 (§1.2.4) and 02 61 13 (§3.1).
42	Will there be any requirements for the Contractor with Community Commitments?	Contractor assistance with community commitments will consist of participation in an annual public meeting in the Village of Luckey. This will include attendance by three contractor employees (Project Superintendent, Project Manager, and one other key individual) and three new or updated posters. This requirement will be added to the final RFP.
43	Will there be any concerns for Preservation of Antiquities, Wildlife, and Land Areas?	USACE is not aware of any concerns related to the preservation of antiquities, wildlife, and land areas. The contractor will be notified if concerns arise.
44	When was the data analysis and surveys for the Be facilities and ground areas performed and what were the methods used?	Data analysis and surveys for the buildings and ground areas are documented in the Remedial Investigation and Volume Uncertainty Investigation reports, which are available in the public repositories and on the Luckey Public Website at: https://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/Missions/HTRW/FUSRAP/Luckey-Site/
45	Is the medical administration to be performed by the contractor?	The RFP will be clarified to indicate that the contractor is responsible for medical adminsitration of their employees.
46	Does the labor agreement include jurisdiction for both RadCon Technicians and Industrial Hygiene Technicians?	The labor agreement applies to all non-exempt employees.
47	Please provide the period of performance for the contract.	Based on the planned funding profile, offerors shall proposed a period of performance for each CLIN as part of the Performance Based Milestone Schedule. These dates will be used to establish the period of performance. This section will be revised with the final RFP.
48	Page 43 of 55, Section L, MANDATORY SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS: States "4. Offerors shall assume a funding limitation of no greater than $30 million annually." Please provide order of preference for the optional tasks identified in Attachment 7, Bid Schedule to enable the offerors to schedule and escalate labor and pricing for the year in which the work will be performed.	Based on the planned funding profile, offerors shall proposed a period of performance for each CLIN as part of the Performance Based Milestone Schedule. These dates will be used to establish the period of performance. This section will be revised with the final RFP.
49	Page 43 of 55, Section L, MANDATORY SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS: States "1. Past Performance examples shall demonstrate recent and relevant past performance with remediation and handling of beryllium. This is due to the unique nature of this contaminant" and Past Performance, Tab A - Example Projects reads "Due to the requirements involved with remediating beryllium, all examples submitted by offerors shall demonstrate recent and relevant past performance with remediation of beryllium...". The requirement to demonstrate all relevant project experience through descriptions of projects involving beryllium remediation severely limits bidders' ability to demonstrate experience in all of the required scope areas. Furthermore, this requirement will severely limit competition for this contract, as there are few (if any) firms that can demonstrate experience on five beryllium remediation projects that are similar in scope to the Luckey Remediation contract. In addition, since the Luckey site is the only FUSRAP site that involves beryllium remediation, experience on other FUSRAP projects could not be considered in the selection process, even if the project was highly relevant to all other scope areas. Although beryllium presents unique medical monitoring requirements, the engineering controls and monitoring that are required for beryllium remediation projects are similar to those required on radionuclide, lead, and asbestos remediation projects. Please consider eliminating the requirement to demonstrate beryllium remediation experience on all five project descriptions. We suggest requiring offerors to demonstrate beryllium remediation experience on one representative project.	See reponse to Question 11.
50	Please provide the current Project Plans PLN-5500 through PLN-5514 referenced in Appendix C of the PWS to assist offerors with developing accurate and responsive cost proposals to the Government. Recommend providing at the Government's earliest convenience prior to the issuance of the RFP to provide offerors with the opportunity to review and negate any unintentional unfair advantage from the incumbent who has current access to these documents.	Project work plans are available on the Luckey Public Website at: https://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/Missions/HTRW/FUSRAP/Luckey-Site/ and will be provided with the final RFP.
51	PWS Section 8.1.2: Project Management Professional (PMP) certification is the gold standard of project management certification. It validates an individual's competency to perform in the role of a project manager, leading and directing a project and team. Given the complexity of the project and importance of cost and schedule control by the Project Manager, we highly recommend that the qualifications for Project Manager be revised to require PMP certification. While a college degree in a technical field may be relevant, this role requires Project Management skills and experience, which is not taught as part of most Bachelor of Science curriculums.	The PWS requirements will not be changed.
52	PWS Section 8.1.1 and 8.1.2: The Project Manager will typically have more authority and responsibility for managing costs under a cost reimbursable contract then the Program Manager. Taking this into consideration and given the size and complexity of this cost reimbursable contract, we recommend that the requirements for Program Manager be revised to 5 years' experience in cost reimbursable contracts and the requirement for Project Manager to be revised to 7 years' experience in cost reimbursable contracts.	The PWS requirements will not be changed.
53	PWS Section 8.1.2: States that the Project Manager (Key Individual) is required to have a college degree or equivalent experience satisfactory to USACE KO. Recommend that "or equivalent experience satisfactory to USACE KO" be deleted as this phrase is ambiguous and could provide grounds for a protest by an unsuccessful offeror.	The PWS requirements will not be changed. The individual experience requirements are a post award issue. They will not be evaluated during the source selection.
54	PWS Section 01.35.45: States that the Project Chemist (Key Individual) is required to have a college degree or equivalent experience satisfactory to USACE KO. Recommend that "or equivalent experience satisfactory to USACE KO" be deleted as this phrase is ambiguous and could provide grounds for a protest by an unsuccessful offeror.	The PWS requirements will not be changed. The individual experience requirements are a post award issue. They will not be evaluated during the source selection.
55	Page 46 of 55, Section L: States in Tab B - Staffing Plan shall "discuss the roles and relevant experience of each Project Member". As the following sentence refers to the offeror and subcontractor it is assumed that "project member" is referring to individual positions. To provide the offeror the ability to fully present their proposed staffing and demonstrate experience relevant to the PWS requirements, it is recommended that text be revised to allow for the submission of 2 page resumes for each key position and that they not be counted toward the 35 page limitation for Volume II.	Tab B will be revised in the final RFP.
56	Page 46 of 55, Section L: States in Tab B - Staffing Plan shall "describe the project staffing structure and discuss the roles and relevant experience of each Project Member". Recommend that the text be revised to state "describe the project staffing structure proposed to perform the project and discuss the roles and relevant experience of each Key Project Member". There are 10 Key Project Members identified in the PWS, but successful performance of the project will require an organization with other project members such as Data Manager, Contracts Officer, etc. which should be described as part of the project staffing structure, but for which no qualifications exist in the PWS for which to be measured against.	Tab B will be revised in the final RFP.
57	Page 46 of 55, Section L: States in Tab D - Performance Based Milestone Schedule that "The offeror shall provide a performance based milestone schedule and chart for the work it proposes to accomplish the contract". Recommend clarifying if Tab D is to consist of a P6 Gantt Chart or if the Government is looking for a separate milestone schedule ad chart.	The offeror should provide a full P6 schedule with Gantt Chart, including required project activity logic, and which identifies the critical path and key milestones.
58	Page 47 of 55, Section L: States in Volume 3 - Cost/Price Proposal that "Offerors shall also propose a fixed price per ton for T&D for each of the Soil Remediation Areas in Tabs B - G and Tab J below. T&D is not required in Tabs A and H". However, the subsequent text describing the organization of the Cost/Price Volume does not reference Tabs G, H or J. Recommend deleting reference to Tabs G, H and J, or adding to list of tabs.	Change will be made to final RFP.
59	Page 47 of 55, Section L: States under Mandatory Solicitation Requirements and in Volume 3 - Cost/Price Proposal that "In order to be considered for award, each offeror shall provide a recent adequacy determination (no older than 3 years than the due date of proposals)". It is challenging for a small business to get system adequacy determinations from a Federal Government agency due to complete demands of large businesses and they are very costly and time consuming for a small business to obtain from a commercial entity Stipulating only a 3-year window for compliance may be an unrealistic requirement due to the Government's shortage of adequate resources to perform requested system adequacy determinations. We respectfully request that the Government revise the date of recent adequacy determination from 3 to 5 years prior to the due date of proposal submission to reflect the current industry averages for Federal Government Agency determinations.	See response to Question 24.
60	Page 37 of 55, Section L, Contract Clauses: 252.234-7001 requires submission of documentation of a CFA determination of a compliant EVMS system or a comprehensive plan for compliance with guidelines. Recommend clarifying if this is to be submitted as part of Volume III or Volume IV.	Tab F of Volume III
61	Page 42 of 55, Section L, JOINT VENTURES: Describes additional documentation required to be submitted by a Joint Venture. Recommend clarifying if this information is to be submitted as part of Volume III or IV.	Volume IV
62	Page 53 of 55, Section M, 2.0 Evaluation Process, Volume II (Factor 2) - Technical Approach, Tab A - Detailed Technical Approach: States "The Government will determine if the offeror meets the certified on-site laboratory requirement as stated in Section L. This is a mandatory requirement for award." Please note that there is no mention of a "certified on-site laboratory requirement" in Section L. Recommend adding requirement to Section L or deleting from Section M.	The RFP will be revised to clarify this requirement and delete the mandatory requirement.
63	Performance Work Statement, Section 7.2.6.1.1: States "Use IP-1 bags with roll-off boxes, if selected". The context of statement "if selected" is unclear. Does the text mean if the "offeror is selected", if "the USACE selects this", etc. Suggest adding language to clarify the Government's intent for this statement.	The RFP will be revised to clarify this statement, "If the contractor selects roll-off boxes, use IP-1 bags. If other conveyances are selected, they must be lined and suitable for handling/disposal at the TSDF."
64	Performance Work Statement, Section 7.5.2.1: States "The following documents will be available before the RFP is issued" and references the Building Subsurface Investigation Results and Building Demolition Plan. Recommend providing at the Government's earliest convenience prior to the issuance of the RFP to provide offerors with the opportunity to review and begin developing its technical approach and cost estimates for this work. In addition, if the incumbent currently has access to these documents, this will negate any unintentional unfair advantage to the incumbent.	This statement will be removed. They will not be available before release of the RFP.
65	Performance Work Statement, Section 8.0 - Contractor Project Staff Organization, Qualifications, and Responsibilities: The requirements for all Key Personnel are "experience with HTRW cleanup or facility decontamination and decommissioning (D&D), preferably involving beryllium and radionuclides." This is in line with the requirements of the PWS; however, the Past Performance requirements only require beryllium remediation. Recommend that Section L and M be revised to reflect Past Performance of projects involving HTRW cleanup or facility D&D preferably involving beryllium and radionuclides."	See response to Question 11.
66	Attachment 7 Bid Schedule, Task 1 - Mobilization: Section 7.1.1.4.1 of the Performance Work Statement states to "Provide utility services (electric, phone, internet, water, sanitary sewage)" as does Section 7.2.8.7 Project Utilities. As the cost proposal will be evaluated for realism and utilities for the most part are a fixed cost with little sensitivity to offeror's approaches, we recommend that the Government provide a plug cost for utilities that are not sensitive to differences in proposed technical approaches. The Kansas City USACE and St. Louis USACE have taken this approach on similar procurements, which reduces time for offerors to prepare bids and for the Government to evaluate pricing.	The RFP will provide current utility costs.
67	Page 47 of 55, Section L, Volume III (Factor 3) - Cost/Price: States that "The offeror's cost proposal shall contain labor categories, labor hours per category, labor rates for prime and each subcontractor…". Attachment 8_WBS Spreadsheet, Tab "Labor Categories Breakout" is a Table of Labor Categories, Descriptions, and Qualifications. As the offeror's will have many subcontractors for this proposal, including commodity subcontractors for activities such as fencing, surveying, etc. it is suggested that the Government only require labor categories for the prime and any subcontractors for whom a letter of commitment has been signed.	The RFP will be revised to state this requirement applies to all subcontractors above $250,000.
68	Page 47 of 55, Section L, Volume III (Factor 3) - Cost/Price: States that "The Offeror's cost proposal shall contain labor categories, labor hours per category, labor rates for prime and each subcontractor…". Attachment 8_WBS Spreadsheet, Tab "Labor Rates Breakout" is a buildup of burdened labor rates. Since the offerors will require many subcontractors to complete the work, including commodity subcontractors for activities such as fencing, surveying, etc., please consider requiring level of labor details for any subcontractors for whom a letter of commitment has been signed. Also, please consider removing the requirement to provide detailed labor information for subcontractors that will provide services on a FFP basis and that are selected through a competitive bidding process.	The RFP will be revised to state this requirement applies to all subcontractors above $250,000.
69	Page 47 or 55, Section L, Volume III (Factor 3) - Cost/Price: States "Offerors shall also propose a fixed price per ton for T&D for each of the Soil Remediation areas in Tabs B - G and Tab J below. T&D is not required in Tabs A and H. Fixed prices shall be proposed per waste category as dictated by the disposal facility's waste acceptance criteria. The unit prices will be fixed for the duration of the contract." Disposal T&D costs are a significant portion of the overall cost for this project and there are a limited number of approved disposal facilities. On the previous solicitation for this site, disposal facilities were known to provide different unit pricing to various offerors for the same scope of work. In order to ensure offerors ability to negotiate fair and reasonable rates on behalf of the Government, it is requested that the current T&D rates for the project be provided as part of the RFP.	This is proprietary information and the Government is not permitted to release this information.
70	Page 47 of 55, Section L, Volume III (Factor 3) - Cost/Price: States "Offerors shall also propose a fixed price per ton for T&D for each of the Soil Remediation areas in Tabs B - G and Tab J below. T&D is not required in Tabs A and H. Fixed prices shall be proposed per waste category as dictated by the disposal facility's waste acceptance criteria. The unit prices will be fixed for the duration of the contract." As T&D costs can be highly variable based on year of performance, please provide Government preference/requirements for order of work for soil remediation and T&D for each of the 6 units.	See response to Question 47.
71	Mandatory Solicitation Requirement #2: Adequacy of accounting system. Most small businesses operate predominantly under fixed price contracts for federal work. DCAA and other federal audit agencies will not evaluate the accounting systems of these companies. While the likely offerors will all have annual audits performed by independent accounting firms, those firms may not be willing to certify that the accounting system meets federal requirements for which those accounting firms are not responsible. This requirement limits competition to the few small businesses that have large cost reimbursable contracts.	This requirement will be revised in the final RFP.
72	Mandatory Solicitation Requirement #3: Evidence of an Earned Value Management System in accordance with DFARS 252.234-7001. There will be very few small businesses with a certified EVMS. However, the DFARS allows for submission of a plan that can be compliant. Please clarify the requirement to state that the evidence required includes the submission of the plan if EVMS is not already in place.	See reponse to Question 25.
73	Past Performance, Tab A, Example Projects: "Due to the requirements involved with remediating beryllium, all examples submitted by offerors shall demonstrate recent and relevant past performance with remediation and handling of beryllium. … No individual project value shall be less than $10,000,000.00 over the total performance period of the project." The combination of requiring that all projects are Be projects and over $10M is very limiting and can be met by only one or two small businesses. There are very few Be projects of this size, with the current Luckey project being one of the few. Smaller projects in the $2M to $3M range that involve Be remediation have the same requirements as $10M Be projects. Companies that have performed these smaller projects may have extensive and unique Be management capabilities. We suggest that the project value be reduced to $2M.	See response to Question 11.
74	PWS Section 5.3.6, Other Activities, Is the use of the RO system a requirement? Other section(s) describe that the RO system is off-line now but wanted to clarify the USACE expectation(s).	Use of the RO system is not required. The contractor must treat water on-site and meet the discharge limits established in the QAPP/SAP (PLN-5503). Note that RFP section 7.2.5.1.2 requires offerors to provide an assessment of the current WWTP and identify/recommend process modifications.
75	PWS Section 5.3.6, Other Activities, Is the contractor required to collect, sample and analyze water samples at a greater frequency than "monthly" and what assumptions should be made regarding the frequency and number of samples?	The QAPP/SAP (PLN-5503) requires the collection of treated water samples from the potable water treatment system on a monthly basis. The results must meet Ohio potable water standards. More samples may be required if exceedances are encountered.
76	PWS Section 8.1.7, CQCSM, Can the college degree requirements be waived with equivalent training, experience, and qualifications?	The PWS requirements are mandatory and will not be waived.
77	PWS Section 01 45 00.00 01, Section 3.4.2.a, CQC System Manager, Can the requirements identified in (a) be waived equivalent training, experience, and qualifications?	The UFGS requirements are mandatory and will not be waived.
78	PWS Section 01 45 00.00 01, Section 3.4.3, Experience Matrix Table, Can the requirements identified in the Experience Matrix table be waived with equivalent training, experience, and qualifications?	The UFGS requirements are mandatory and will not be waived.
79	PWS Section 7.1.1.1.1, Work Requirements, Can the Government provide costs to be assumed for those items not GFE (rental & lease) to be assumed for costing purposes?	Leased item costs will not be provided in the final RFP.
80	PWS Section 5.2, Mobilization and Infrastructure Construction, Can the Government provide the transitional lease/rental rates for the trailers and other installed facilities which would be transitioned from contractor to contractor following award?	Leased item costs will not be provided in the final RFP.
81	PWS Section 01 35 45, UFGS, Could this requirement be waived, provided the contractor demonstrate a cost-effective alternative method which does not impact site operations and availability of relevant data? Global question to the entire PWS and solicitation requirements.	The UFGS requirements are mandatory and will not be waived.
82	PWS Section 01 45 00.00, UFGS, Can the college requirements be waived with equivalent training, experience, and qualifications?	The UFGS requirements are mandatory and will not be waived.
83	Attachment 7 Bid Schedule, T&D CLINs, Can the Government provide assumed volumes of material broken down by trench rather than solely by CLIN (e.g. CLIN 0004 - Trenches 1 and 2 has an estimated quantity of 63,465 tons; what is the expected volume of each waste stream for these areas)?	Attachment 1.1 (Contaminated Soil Volume Estimate Summary) provides more detailed information that can be used to estimate the amount of contamined soils and waste stream characteristics for individual areas.
84	PWS Attachment 1, Section 8, Will the Government accept equivalent past work experience for the requirements/qualifications of key personnel in-lieu of college degrees?	See response to Question 53.
85	PWS Attachment 2, EPRIMS Data Format Dictionary, Is the contractor required to implement an electronic data management system utilizing the attached EPRIMS Data Format Dictionary and should this include users for USACE and contractor? If so, how many USACE users should be assumed?	Yes, the contractor is required to implement an electronic data management system using the ERPIMS Data Format Dictionary. Requirements are provided in UFGS Section 01 35 13.43 10 (§ 1.2.6). Assume 15 USACE users.
86	PWS Section 01 35 29.31, Section 1.5.4, OCCUPATIONAL PHYSICIAN, PMOD requirements (Board Eligible) - Can the Government accept medical providers and PMOD's who have experience with managing beryllium programs and medical services associated with the CBDPP who may not be, "Board Eligible"?	The UFGS requirements are mandatory and will not be waived.
87	RFP Section K - Page 36 of 55, FAR 52.222-23, Notice of Requirement for Affirmative Action to Ensure Equal Employment Opportunity for Construction, This clause is to be included in solicitations for construction. If this solicitation is considered constructions, will a Davis Bacon Act Wage Determination be included with the solicitation in addition to the Service Contract Act Wage Determination?	This clause will be deleted. It is a Service Contract and only the Service Contract Act Wage Determination will be included.
88	RFP Section I - Page 21 of 55, FAR 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires, Does the Government intend to identify the classes of service employees expected to be employed under the contract in this clause?	Yes
89	GLOBAL QUESTION - Can the Government provide historical labor rates or the market analysis rates for the local trade labor for pricing purposes?	No
90	RFP Section L, Page 43 of 55, Paragraph 4, "Offerors shall assume a funding limitation of no greater than $30 million annually." Will the offeror be considered non-responsive if its proposal exceeds a value greater than $30 million for any given year while still being under the estimated contract value of $300 million for 10 years.	No, but it may impact the rating.
91	GLOBAL QUESTION - Property management references are identified by for clarification, what is the dollar amount threshold the USACE requires the contractor to manage, tag and track procurement items and Government equipment to (e.g., > $50.00, >$500, >$5,000, etc.)?	See Solicitiation Clause 52.245-1.
92	Solicitation page 20, clause FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. Is the intent to exercise one 60-month extension? Please clarify.	See reponse to Question 47.
93	Solicitation page 51, Volume I (Factor 1) - Past Performance. Can a CPARS be provided in lieu of a PPIRS?	See response to Question 12.
94	Solicitation page 46, item (c) Tab C, Transition and Schedule Risk Management Plan. Is there a specified "Transition" period? There is not a "Transition" CLIN on the bid schedule nor a specified duration for the transition. Does "Mobilization" encompass "Transition" activities and the assumption of responsibility for the ongoing work from the incumbent contractor? It would seem appropriate to specify a transition period immediately followed by mobilization to the site. Please clarify.	The transition period should be included under "mobilization".
95	Solicitation page 46, item (c) Tab C, item 4, Transition and Schedule Risk Management Plan. Is the DoD ELAP certification (or recertification) of the on-site laboratory to be achieved during the transition and/or mobilization period?	The government recognizes that some activities (i.e. ELAP accreditation) may extend beyond the mobilization period.
96	Solicitation page 53, item (1) Tab A, Detailed Technical Approach. This section states: "The Government will determine if the offeror meets the certified on-site laboratory requirement, as stated in Section L. This is a mandatory requirement for award." Is the Section L cited above referring to the one given below from Section L, page 46: "4. On-site laboratory accreditation under the Department of Defense (DoD) Environmental Laboratory Program (ELAP) to facilitate rapid turnaround of analytical results associated with contamination control monitoring, industrial hygiene monitoring, waste characterization, and confirmation sampling." Please clarify how this can be a mandatory requirement for award when the successful awardee cannot obtain the laboratory certification of an on-site laboratory they do not manage until after award.	The mandatory requirement will be deleted in the revised RFP.
97	PWS Section 8.1.7 CQCSM requires that the CQCSM meet the qualifications in 01 45 00.00 10, which states that the CQCSM must have a "minimum of nine semester hours, 12 continuing education units (or a combination thereof) in an area relevant to HTRW remediation." We request that this requirement be deleted as item b) "A minimum of seven years' experience in the development and/or implementation of QA programs addressing requirements commensurate with ANSI/ASME NQA-1, 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B, or similar International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards, preferably as they apply to HTRW cleanup and facility demolition and deconstruction" already demonstrates relevant experience.	This will not be changed.
98	Has any waste been transported off-site to any of the TSDFs shown in Table 2 in the past? If so, please provide information on waste types disposed at each respective TSDF.	FUSRAP-contaminated soils and materials are currently being disposed of at the U.S. Ecology Wayne Disposal, Inc. facility.
99	PWS Page 20, 7.0 Remediation Requirements states current project work plans, interim change notices and standard operating procedures (SOPs) are provided in Appendix C. The reading of the PWS implies that the offeror would revise and use the existing work plans and procedures; however, the list of SOPs in Appendix C is very limited. Are there additional SOPs, including Radiation Protection Program and Laboratory operations, or will the offeror be providing these SOPS?	Appendix C contains all SOPs and ICNs that have been developed to date. Work plans were not attached to the draft RFP due to size limitations. They will be included with the final RFP. After award, the contractor will be required to update the work plans, as necessary, to reflect changes to the project organization and any new or revised procedures (Section 7.1.1.2.1).
100	Regarding the operation of the Government owned Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), will the plant discharge be operated under an existing discharge permit or will the offeror be required to obtain a new permit?	USACE does not have a permit with Ohio EPA for the discharge of treated water. We are required to meet discharge limits established by Ohio EPA and USACE.
101	PWS Page 24, Section 7.2.2.2, Roads/Parking/Curbs/Walks: The work requirements state that the offeror will provide all labor, materials, equipment, facilities and incidentals necessary for paving, temporary access roads and staging areas. Are baseline surveys and or area release required prior to the site modifications? If required, what are the protocols that need to be met?	During the on-going remedial action, temporary access roads and staging areas have been installed to support excavation and on-site transport of contaminated soil. They have been predominately located in the EZ (i.e. between the excavations and soil processing area). Baseline surveys and area releases have not been required because workers in these areas are using PPE and exit through the CRZ. Offerors should decide where the new temporary roads/staging areas will be located. Note that Section 7.2.2.2.2 requires offerors to identify if and where any temporary staging areas would be located.

Parking lot paving requirements are provided in Attachment 1.4.

102	Solicitation Page 16: Please include FAR 52.228-7, "Insurance - Liability to Third Persons", since Public Law 85-804 has not been made applicable.	Will be added to the final RFP.
103	Solicitation Page 17: Please include FAR 52.236-2, "Differing Site Conditions", for FFP CLINs.	Based on the clause prescription, this clause is not appropriate.
104	Section L, Volume I (Factor 1) Past Performance - Page Limits: Please clarify if the five example maximum is for the entire team/JV or is it allowable to provide five examples per team member.	5 examples total.
105	Section L, Volume I (Factor 1) Past Performance - The mandatory $10M individual project value seems excessive. If a relevant project is performed on an ID/IQ type contract, chances are, it will not be valued at >$10M. The USACE would open competition by allowing smaller contracts/task orders to be submitted.	See response to Question 11.
106	Section L, Mandatory Solicitation Requirements: Reads "1. Past Performance examples shall demonstrate recent and relevant past performance with remediation and handling of beryllium. This is due to the unique nature of this contaminant" and Past Performance, Tab A - Example Projects reads "Due to the requirements involved with remediating beryllium, all examples submitted by offerors shall demonstrate recent and relevant past performance with remediation of beryllium...". As an environmental firm with significant Department of Energy (DOE) experience we note that except for Luckey, no other FUSRAP sites have beryllium as a contaminant. Therefore, the Government is unlikely to receive a qualified bid from any offerors with 5 projects demonstrating significant FUSRAP all associated with beryllium. Further, as a DOE contractor with experience writing and implementing beryllium management programs, we are aware there are limited DOE sites with similar beryllium contamination requiring special experience to safely mitigate the hazards of beryllium outside of standard OSHA and EM385 Engineering Controls and medical testing. Excavation and remediating of beryllium contaminated soil is no different than excavation and remediation of other FUSRAP radiologically impacted waste. However, we do recognize the important role regulatory interface plays in the success or failure of projects such as Luckey. Accordingly, we recommend the requirement for past performance be modified to the following: "Offerors, to include all members of a proposed joint venture and team subcontractors, shall provide a cumulative total of no less than six relevant projects that have been completed within the last ten years prior to the solicitation closing date; or, be ongoing with at least 50% of performance completed prior to the solicitation closing date. Projects shall have a value of no less than $10 million, each. These project should demonstrate significant experience with any combination of: 1) Beryllium Remediation; (2) Beryllium Handling; (3) Beryllium Management Programs; (4) Radiological Waste Management; or (5) Demonstrated experience interfacing with Ohio regulatory authorities. Further, the Prime Contractor, or majority joint venture owner if proposing as a joint venture, shall provide no less than three of the six relevant projects. At least two of these projects should specifically demonstrate significant experience with beryllium remediation and handling.	See response to Question 11 and Question 104.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Apr 7, 2020.