Round 3 Questions_22 July.docx

Round 3 Questions

1. Under the Past Performance Questionnaires sub-section, beginning of the second paragraph, it states:

Submit completed PPQs as an appendix to Volume II.

Please clarify that this appendix, as well as any other required appendices for this and other volumes, are not included in the page limits specified on page 43 of 56.

Answer: The PPQs do not count against the page limit. See Amendment 03 for changes. Unless the solicitation states it does not count against the page limit, it counts.

2. Past Performance asks offerors to provide project examples in the following area:

“Large-scale construction remediation (over $10 million) involving multiple activities to include decontamination, shoring, water management and waste water processing, excavation and handling of beryllium, lead, and radionuclide impacted soils and debris.”; and further states, “Beryllium remediation experience may be rated more favorably.”

Based on these criteria, would health and safety, laboratory operations, and/or engineering support of a beryllium remediation project be considered relevant experience? Based on these criteria, would waste management operations in support of a beryllium remediation project be considered relevant experience?

Answer: In accordance with Section M, the Government will assign a relevancy rating to each submitted project. Offeror’s past performance on projects similar in size and scope that required beryllium remediation may be rated more favorably. The language in Section L has been changed to ““Large-scale construction remediation (over $10 million) involving multiple activities such as decontamination…” See Amendment 03 for changes.

3. UFGS SECTION 02 61 13 has a requirement for waste minimization and discussion of place-back soils. However, the PWS and supporting cost tables show all excavated waste being shipped offsite. Please confirm the intention is not to use any of the excavated soil for place-back with regards to the cost proposal.

Answer: For purposes of the cost proposal, Offerors shall assume that excavated soil will not be used for place-back.

USACE will consider alternative technical approaches, post award, if they are in the best interest of the government. This would include waste minimization and utilization of place-back soils, in accordance with UFGS SECTION 02 61 13.

4. Section 7.0 of the RFP, Remediation Requirements, requires us to perform all work in accordance with the requirements of this section including following existing plans and procedures. As such, is it the USACE’s intention to strictly follow all requirements in this section with no deviation or adjustment of technical approach?

Answer: For purposes of the cost proposal, Offerors shall assume that all work shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of RFP Section 7.0, following existing plans and procedures.

USACE will consider alternative technical approaches, post award, if they are in the best interest of the government.

5. Section B Items do not correlate to the Bid Schedule / Tasks (i.e.: Section B Item 3 is for Soil Remediation of Trenches 1 and 2 and Bid Schedule Task 3 is Transportation & Disposal. Please clarify.

Answer: Section B and the bid schedule can be correlated as follows.

6. On the Bid Schedule, how do we know which items are Fixed Price and which items are CPFF?

Answer: See response to question 5.

7. Should offerors assume that the existing WWTP will handle the expected infiltration rate?

Answer: Offerors shall assume that the existing WWTP will handle the expected infiltration rate.

8. Is the USACE requesting an engineering staff onsite? If so, can you please set expectations for the number of personnel anticipated?

Answer: Offeror’s staffing plan (Technical Approach, Element A) should identify the engineering staff size and their location (on-site or off-site). The current contract utilizes a full time, on-site project engineer, engineering technician, and WWTP operator. Home office engineering support and subcontracted engineering support is provided on an as-needed basis.

9. It appears that the RFP is directing bidders to follow the current work processes set up and that offerors should follow the existing approved Work Plans and procedures currently being followed. As such, and to ensure all offerors have the information required to provide realistic bids, can the USACE please provide:

· The number of anticipated IH / safety Technicians to manage Be procedures?

· The number of waste specialists / technicians?

· Number of rad techs to help facilitate rad controls and movement of material?

· Number of Project Controls requested at the Project to keep up with the anticipated expectations?

Answer: Offeror’s staffing plan (Technical Approach, Element A) must identify the technical staff size and make-up to meet project requirements identified in the PWS, work plans, interim change notices, and standard operating procedures.

10. In Section M of the RFP, it states that:

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment as explained below… The Government will assign a relevancy rating to each submitted project. There is no overall relevancy rating.

However, further on in the same section, it states that:

rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Please clarify whether the relevancy rating is considered separate to the performance confidence assessment, or a sub-factor in the determination of the performance confidence assessment? Since there is no overall rating for relevancy, it would appear to be a part of the performance confidence assessment.

Answer: The sentence “There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment as explained below” has been deleted from the solicitation. There is no overall relevancy rating. See Amendment 03 for changes.

11. In Section M of the RFP it states that:

Past performance information demonstrating the following may increase the performance confidence assessment rating:

· Prime/subcontractor or joint ventures successfully working together on projects with hazards/issues with the same size, scope and complexity as the Luckey site may be evaluated more favorably over prime/subcontractor or joint ventures that do not have that experience working together.

· Prime contractor past performance projects may be rated more favorably than team subcontractor projects.

· Offeror’s past performance on projects similar in size and scope that required remediation of beryllium may be rated more favorably.

From this information, it would appear that the RFP is providing a disincentive to provide teaming partner past performance, is it “may” not be evaluated as highly.

Could the government provide a more definitive metric for scoring past performance from primes vs subs / experienced teams vs new teams / and beryllium remediation to allow teams to better select their past performance projects.?

Answer: No. It is clear what may be evaluated more favorably.

12. We respectfully request that the government allow offerors to include their OSHA 300/A Logs as an attachment to Volume 1, outside of the 10 page limit.

Answer: Agreed. See Amendment 03 for changes.

13. The RFP instructs bidders to utilize the HTRW WBS (identified in Section C) to organize proposed costs and pricing. Further, it directs bidders to provide Bases of Estimate at the lowest level WBS item. Please clarify if BOEs are to be provided at the lowest WBS element specified in Sections 6.1 through 6.5 of the PWS (i.e. 331XX0101) or if bidders should propose BOEs and costs at WBS levels lower than those indicated in Sections 6.1 through 6.5 (i.e. WBS level 331XX010101) and in accordance with the lowest WBS designations in the USACE HTRW WBS.

Answer: Offerors should propose costs and provide BOEs at the Subsystem (Third) Level of the HTRW Remedial Action Work Breakdown Structure.

14. The mobilization WBS does not contain an item 331XX0102 (Mobilization of Personnel). Where should bidders include costs associated with mobilization of personnel / relocation of supervisory personnel?

Answer: Offerors should propose costs and provide BOEs at the Subsystem (Third) Level of the HTRW Remedial Action Work Breakdown Structure.

15. The PWS estimates 904 BCY of contaminated soil underneath the production building slab. Should bidders assume that the entire production building slab will need to be removed to access this volume of contaminated soil? Should bidders assume the entirety of the slab is volumetrically contaminated with beryllium and/or radioactive contaminants?

Answer: Offerors shall include removal of sufficient production building slab to access modeled FUSRAP-contaminated material under the production building slab as depicted on Figure 3. Proposed costs for partial removal of the production building slab should be included under Task 2e.

16. Figure 3.1 of the volume estimate summary uses a density of 1.85 tons per in-situ CY. Should bidders assume this density for our volume / weight calculations?

Answer: Yes, use a conversion of 1.85 tons/BCY (refer to PWS section 7.2.4.1.1).

17. The PWS lists 3 WBS elements for this scope (Mobilization, Demolition and Removal and Disposal). However, no associated support WBS elements (such as General Requirements (22), Monitoring, Sampling, Testing and Analysis (02), etc.) are listed for the deconstruction work. For pricing purposes, where should bidders include these support activities needed for Building Deconstruction? Or should bidders assume this work occurs concurrent with other work on site and these costs are captured under the soil remediation support WBS elements?

Answer: Refer to the responses to Round 2 questions and the revised bid schedule that was attached. Include monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis costs associated with deconstruction work under 331XX10.

18. Page 15 of PWS, Section 5.3.1 states that “Excavation is performed using global positioning system (GPS) guided equipment”. Section 02 61 13, Excavation and Handling of Contaminated Material, Subsection 3.1 states that surveys are to be conducted “in accordance with the SOW and Section 01 22 00.00 PRICE and PAYMENT PROCEDURES”. The only reference we could find in the SOW (PWS) related to surveying is in Section 7.2.8.2 Engineering, Surveying and Quality Control (331XX2204), first bullet “Survey all excavated areas before, during and after the work.” Please provide the specifications/accuracy required for surveys.

Answer: Geospatial data requirements are provided in Section 01 35 13.43 10. Provide topographic map contours at an interval of 0.5 ft.

19. Page 15 of PWS, Section 5.3.1 states that “Excavation is performed using global positioning system (GPS) guided equipment”. Section 02 61 13, Excavation and Handling of Contaminated Material, Subsection 3.1 states that surveys are to be conducted “in accordance with the SOW and Section 01 22 00.00 PRICE and PAYMENT PROCEDURES”. Section 01 22 00.00 is missing from RFP, please provide.

Answer: Replace section 02 61 13, §3.1, 2nd paragraph with the following, “Conduct the surveys in accordance with the SOW and Section 01 35 13.43 10 Special Project Procedures. Provide survey results to the Contracting Officer for approval.”

20. Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices, for items 0004, 0006, 0008, 0010, 0012 and 0014 contains quantities as “Dry Ton”. Section 5.3.1 of the PWS states that “If necessary the soils are conditioned using a calcium oxide/pozzolan product” Please clarify if the quantities in Section B include conditioning material and if so at what assumed percentage.

Answer: The estimated weights for section B items 0004, 0006, 0008, 0010, 0012 and 0014 do not include the addition of a conditioning material. Their basis is provided in PWS section 7.2.4.1.1. Estimated weights are summarized below. Section B (attached) has been revised for consistency with 7.2.4.1.1 and the bid schedule.

· ITEM NO 0004 - 78,274 tons

· ITEM NO 0006 - 32,159 tons

· ITEM NO 0008 - 37,181 tons

· ITEM NO 0010 - 3,521 tons

· ITEM NO 0012 - 1,672 tons

· ITEM NO 0014 – 1,970 tons Assume conditioning material will be added at rate of approximately 4.5 percent (by weight).

21. Section 02 81 00, Transportation and Disposal of Hazardous Materials, 3.2.6 Waste Handling, Transportation, and Disposal states “Utilize a tracking system acceptable to USACE”. Please provide details on current tracking system being used as an example of an acceptable system or provide contract requirements associated with the tracking system.

Answer: A spreadsheet is acceptable to USACE, with mutually agreed contents. The current Contractor routinely updates and shares a spreadsheet with USACE that minimally includes: incremental box count, unique box ID, box serial number, contents, date filled, net weight (matches manifest), disposal facility invoice weight, shipment gross pounds, shipment date, manifest number, and assigned waste profile number.

22. Amendment 1, Question Number 7, the government response seems to indicate that the organization chart will not be included in the page count for Volume III. However, Amendment 1 does not appear to address this in Section L (page 4 of 9, nor page 7 of 9). Please confirm that the organization chart required in Element A is not included in the page count of Volume III.

Answer: See Amendment 02.