Round 4 Questions 31 Jul 2020.docx

Round 4 Questions

1. Per Figure 4 from the PWS, it appears that contamination extends beyond the site property boundary along the eastern side of the planned excavation of Trenches 1 & 2. Does USACE have access to this adjacent property which will allow the removal of the impacted material?

Answer: Yes, in addition to the FUSRAP Site, USACE has real estate access for all property contained within the remedial areas depicted on Figure 4.

2. Assuming the answer is yes to the above question, does the USACE have adequate access to this property to allow for excavation sloping or should the contractor assume that some type of sheeting, retaining wall, etc. will have to be utilized to stabilize this portion of the excavation?

Answer: Per the response to #1, Offerors should assume that there is adequate space for excavation sloping.

3. Per page 5 of Amendment 1, VOLUME I (Factor 1) – Safety Record. We note a comment that states the offeror “must include enough explanation to allow the reader to easily reproduce and validate the calculations.” We are not sure what USACE requires from us to accomplish that. Are OSHA logs required?

Answer: Yes, OSHA logs are required.

4. If OSHA logs are required, are they also not included in the page count—like the EMR letter?

Answer: OSHA logs are not included in the page count.

5. Are copies of the disposal facility waste profiles and shipping manifests (i.e. paperwork) from the current contractor available anywhere such as the USACE’s website, the public repository, etc.?

Answer: The waste profiles and shipping manifests are not on the public website or in a public repository. Through June 2020, excavated wastes are transported on non-hazardous waste manifests, and about 78% use the proper shipping name (PSN) UN3077, Environmentally hazardous substance, solid, n.o.s. About 19% of excavated wastes also ship as not regulated by DOT or RCRA, and a few percent of shipments used PSN UN2912, Radioactive material, low specific activity (LSA-I) non-fissile. Example manifests are attached.

6. Regarding Performance Work Statement, Page 34 7.5 Optional Tasks 5A through 5F- Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation. Will the government please provide estimated waste volumes of structure, asbestos, contaminated paint and misc. items to be removed as part of Optional Task 5A through 5F? This will aid us in providing USACE cost estimates.

Answer: See attached site building and debris volume estimates. Assume there is no pre-deconstruction survey or abatement of ACM or other hazardous materials. Assume 25% of the building deconstruction debris will meet, or will be sized to meet, <7 pCi/g Ra-226+Ra-228; Debris, 25-CY roll-off box, less than 1,000 pounds and less than 3-ft in all dimensions (each individual piece). Assume 75% of the building deconstruction debris will meet, or will be sized to meet, <7 pCi/g Ra-226+Ra-228; Debris, sized to fit 25 CY roll-off box, or intermodal up to 32 CY.

7. Regarding Performance Work Statement, Page 34 7.5 Optional Tasks 5A through 5F- Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation. Will the government provide photographs and narrative descriptions of the structures to be removed as part of Optional Task 5A through 5F, including information asbestos, contaminated paint and miscellaneous items?

Answer: Exterior photographs of the structures are attached.

8. What is the current on-site laboratory certified for?

Answer: See Amendment 02.

9. Regarding page 46 of the RFP, (c) Element C – Performance Based Milestone Schedule. For purposes of developing the project schedule and costing, please provide project start dates that should be used for each of the optional tasks included in the RFP, i.e. Optional Task 5a - Building Deconstruction (Melting, Alloying, & Shipping Building), etc.

Answer: Offerors shall provide projected start dates for the optional tasks. Offerors were given the annual funding amount, and the sequence of the work is up to each contractor.

10. Please provide a list of government holidays that we should plan for in our work schedule.

Answer: Federal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the public holidays for Federal employees. USACE may provide an on-site presence on public holidays scheduled as work days.

11. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, is it acceptable to present evidence of EVMS of the managing partner only? Or, do both Joint Venture members need to submit evidence?

Answer: Evidence of EVMS of the managing partner is sufficient.

12. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, do both parties need to provide an accounting system adequacy determination letter?

Answer: The party responsible for invoicing needs to provide an accounting system adequacy determination letter. This should be documented in the Joint Venture documentation.

13. What depths should we assume for the S, I, and B wells? The overburden varies in thickness so we cannot necessarily base it on the depth to bedrock.

Answer: Well construction information is included in Section 33 51 39 (Monitoring Wells). A summary is provided below.

14. SECTION 33 51 39 Section 1.1 Unit Prices indicates unit pricing for filter pack, well screen, bentonite, etc. will be used for payment. Are these unit prices to be presented in the proposal? There are no line items in the bid schedule for them.

Answer: The statement, “Payment for each specified item is made at the contract unit price for that item” will be removed from Section 33 51 39, §1.1.

15. Can USACE provide a copy of the vendor provided wastewater treatment system O&M plan that was submitted during startup?

Answer: The vendor provided O&M manual is attached.

16. How many wells should we assume per mobilization?

Answer: Figure 4 (attached) has been modified to show well locations. It can be used to determine which wells need to be abandoned at each remediation area. Assume new wells will be installed in one mobilization during the site restoration phase (PWS section 7.2.7) of the last remediation task.

17. Section L, Volume II, page 45 of 56: States that “example projects should address the offeror’s and its team member’s past performance in the following areas: FUSRAP and/or U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) work and/or commercial projects.” As there are radiological EPA projects/sites with scope similar to FUSRAP projects, we respectfully request that L be revised to state “FUSRAP, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and/or U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) work and/or commercial projects” Answer: Section L has been amended to reflect this change. See Amendment 04 for changes.

18. Section B, Pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Transportation and Disposal: Transportation to the disposal facilities and disposal services represent a significant cost (more than 15%) of the contract value. These commercial services are commodity-based and not a subcontracted task. Based on these factors, would the Government consider utilizing the MULTIPLE AWARD RADIOLOGICAL TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES (MARTADS) W912DR-14-R-0062 to contract the required transportation and disposal services for the Luckey project? The utilization of this contract for commercial transportation and disposal services has proven to be very cost-effective for multiple FUSRAP sites. It has 75% remaining capacity to support the Luckey project.

Answer: No, the Buffalo District considered this approach and decided not to contract T&D separately.

19. Section B, Pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Transportation and Disposal: A significant cost component of the project is the actual transportation and disposal of waste materials. We understand many of the elements of the overall transportation and disposal line items will vary with each bidder, such as, the number of truck shipments; tonnage per container; liner/tarp systems, placards; mobilization/demobilization of trucks and containers; tracking and tracing trucks and containers; and the manifesting. Based on this, would the Government consider fixing this single cost component of transportation and disposal for all bidders? When considering the cost elements associated with the transportation and disposal of waste, the actual cost should be nearly identical for all bidders.

Answer: The Buffalo District considered fixing the single cost component of transportation and disposal for all bidders and decided not to.

20. Section L, Volume III, Page 47 of 56: States that “the offerors cost proposal must contain labor categories, labor hours per category, labor rates for the prime contractor and each subcontractor (Over $250K estimated billing) …....”. As the prime contractor may procure services competitively as FFP for items such as backfill material, Transport of Materials, Disposal of Materials, Etc. We respectively request that this be amended to require labor categories, labor hours per category and labor rates only for team subcontractors.

Answer: Section L will be modified to require labor categories, labor hours per category and labor rates only for team subcontractors. Offerors will be required to provide price quotations from other subcontractors and vendors that are proposed to provide materials and/or services over $250,000.

21. PWS, TOC, Appendix C Work Plans, Interim Change Notices, and SOPS: Lists PLN-5514 as the “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier 1 Qualified Facility SPCC Plan” dated 2018. However, the Buffalo USACE FUSRAP Luckey Web Site contains a “2020” version of the document. Please clarify which version of PLN-5514 is applicable to the RFP.

Answer: PLN-5514, Rev. 2, dated 10 February 2020, is applicable.

22. PWS, TOC, Appendix C Work Plans, Interim Change Notices, and SOPS: Lists PLN-5513 as the “Radiation Protection Plan for the Luckey Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program Remediation Plan “dated 2016. However, the Buffalo USACE FUSRAP Luckey Web Site contains a “2020” version of the document. Please clarify which version of PLN-5513 is applicable to the RFP.

Answer: PLN-5513, Rev. 3, dated 19 February 2020, is applicable.

23. PWS, Section L, Volume 1 – Safety Record, Subsection 1, Page 44 of 46: States that the offeror shall submit “A summary of accidents that occurred within the last three (3) calendar years from the date of this RFP that resulted in property damage over $5,000, ….” Minor automobile accidents (fender-benders) may often occur offsite and can easily result in damage over $5,000 due to the design of modern cars. These are often due to fault of a 3rd party and are not representative of project safety issues or avoidable accidents and for a larger company can be over a dozen a year. We therefore respectfully request that the government consider revising this statement to “A summary of non-vehicular accidents that occurred within the last three (3) calendar years from the date of this RFP that resulted in property damage over $5,000..”

Answer: This language will not be changed.

24. PWS, Section L, Volume 2 – Past Performance, Page 45 of 56: States that “The example projects should address the offeror’s and its team member’s part performance in the following areas: FUSRAP and or U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) work and/or commercial projects”. Please confirm that there is no hierarchy to the order of clients/types of projects as listed and that a “Commercial project” will receive equal consideration as a “FUSRAP” project.

Answer: Per Section M, the Government will assign a relevancy rating to each submitted project. The adjectival ratings are described in the table in Section M.

25. CLIN ITEM NO 004, 006, 008, 010, 012, 014 T&D: These CLINs are all FFP and require the offers to price out transportation and disposal costs up to 11 years out, based on a proposal submittal date of 08/2020, award of 09/2021 and POP thru 08/2031. These will require the offerors to project out escalation of fuel prices for a non-typical amount of time, which will result in significant uncertainty and surcharges to cover expected costs. The government would benefit from changing this CLINS to Cost plus Fixed Fee like the other CLINS to reduce the costs to the government of this significant project uncertainty for which neither the government nor the offerors have the ability to accurately project. This would give the government the benefit of recognizing savings from the actual fluctuation of fuel prices as opposed to a project 10 years out.

Answer: This structure will not be changed.

26. PWS, Section 7.5.3 Building Deconstruction Waste Disposal: The drawings provided as part of the RFP do not contain sufficient detail to perform material takeoffs for purposes of determining the waste weights and volumes of building materials. Can the government provide additional engineering drawings of the facilities mentioned, superstructure, drains, sumps and slab construction, such that material take offs can be performed to determine waste weights and volumes of building materials?

Answer: Additional historical drawings are provided with this response set. See response to #6.

27. PWS, Section 7.5.2 Building Demolition and Removal: The PWS requires removal and disposal of asbestos, contaminated paint, PCBs and other hazardous materials. Sufficient information does not exist in the PWS to develop a cost estimate for this CLIN. Please provide information on previous characterization studies of the structures for hazardous materials to allow offerors to identify types, locations and volumes of hazardous materials that will require abatement and disposal.

Answer: See response to #6.

28. PWS, Section 7.5 Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal: Can the government provide additional written past facility knowledge, building descriptions, past uses and historical data related to contamination levels present in each facility in order to permit development of estimates of hazardous materials that may be present?

Answer: All available information on the buildings is provided in the Performance Work Statement and RI report. Also, see Response to #6.

29. PWS, Section 7.5 Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal: Can the government provide detailed description of structural components such as overhead cranes, materials stored, and structural stability of the individual buildings to enable the offerors to determine means and methods for abatement and deconstruction of structures?

Answer: See response to #28. Additional historical drawings are provided with this response set.

30. PWS, Section 7.5 Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal: Please confirm that the offeror is not responsible for removal of any slabs, foundations or underground utilities as part of this SOW.

Answer: Slabs, foundations, and utilities will be removed, as needed, to access soil contamination beneath the main production building (Refer to figure 4 for the estimated extent of contaminated soil in this area). Assume deconstruction of all other on-site buildings/ structures will include the removal of slabs and foundations to surrounding grade. Underground utilities must be capped and plugged.

31. PWS, Section 7.5 Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal: Please provide details on any equipment or materials within the structures that will require removal and disposal that that are not shown in the provided drawings.

Answer: See response to #29.

32. PWS, Section 7.5 Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal: Please clarify if the offerors are responsible for performing pre-deconstruction characterization studies of the structures for hazardous materials. If so, the current specifications only cover abatement of material, please provide requirements for performance of characterization.

Answer: See response to #6.

33. The Draft RFP referenced a “Building Demolition Plan”, but in Q&A regarding the Draft RFP the government indicated that this Plan would not be available at the time of release of RFP. We respectfully request that the current version of the plan be provided for reference to assist the offerors with development of a cost estimate for PWS Section 7.5.

Answer: The Building Demolition Plan will not be available when proposals are due.

34. As the current Luckey FUSRAP Remediation contract is cost reimbursable, it is assumed that there is a significant amount of GFE (equipment, materials, tools and supplies) on site. We respectfully request that the complete list of GFE maintained by the current contractor be provided to ensure that offers do not duplicate items that will be available on site to the new contractor.

Answer: A list of leased and government furnished equipment/items that will be available was provided in the response to round 2 questions. It has been updated and a new list is attached.

35. Due to workload constraints at cognizant audit agencies, small businesses do not always have priority in getting updated system audits. Would the government extend the validity of the accounting system adequacy determination to 6 years from date of determination provided the offeror statement indicates that there have been no material changes since the issuance of the determination?

Answer: Yes, see Amendment 04 for changes.

36. PWS Section 7.1.1.2.1: States that the offeror is to “update project work plans”. Please confirm that native word files of the work plans will be made available to the successful offeror.

Answer: Confirmed.

37. PWS Section 7.1.1.1 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and Facilities (WBS 331XX0101) and Section 7.1.1.3 Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities (331XX0104) appear to have overlap. For example, WBS 331XX0101 Section 7.1.1.1.1 states “set-up construction equipment and facilities” and includes “on-site laboratory setup” while WBS 331XX0104 Section 7.1.1.3.1 states “setup and construct temporary construction facilities”. Section 01 50 00 Temporary Construction Facilities and Controls, Section 3.5 CONTRACTOR TEMPORARY FACILITIES, lists the analytical laboratory as a temporary facility which would seem to indicate it should be in WBS 331XX0104 instead of WBS 331XX0101. Please clarify what items the offeror is to price within each of these two WBS elements.

Answer: Include mobilization of construction equipment under WBS 331XX0101. Mobilization and set-up of temporary construction facilities, including the on-site laboratory and wastewater treatment system, are included under WBS 331XX0104.

38. Pre-Proposal Conference Slides: States that the government will post answers to all questions by July 24th, 2020, which is 12 days prior to proposal due date of August 5th, 2020. Due to COVID19 restrictions in the State of Ohio, the ability of offerors to obtain revised pricing from vendors and subcontractors to respond to amendment changes driven by Q&A will take longer than normal. We respectfully request that the government consider extending the due date for the proposal by 7 days to August 12th in consideration of these conditions.

Answer: The due date for proposals was extended to August 19, 2020 via Amendment 03.

39. Reference: Section 7.2.1.1.1 Work Requirements (p.24 of the Performance Work Statement) states that the successful bidder will “Perform semi-annual sampling and analysis of groundwater from monitoring wells, one domestic water supply well, and two on-site production wells.”

Point leading to the need for clarification: The Groundwater Monitoring Report for Fall 2019 states that there are 23 monitoring wells however, lists 21 wells in Table 1. The Groundwater Monitoring Report for Spring 2019 states that there are 21 monitoring wells and lists 21 wells in Table 1 (the same 21 listed for the Fall 2019 Report).

Question: Will USACE please clarify the correct number of monitoring wells along with additional well identification if applicable?

Answer: The current number of wells to be sampled is provided below.

· Monitoring wells (MW or OMW designation): 19

· Domestic well (GW-0002): 1

· Production wells PW-(E) and PW-(W): 2 The list will change as remediation progresses and wells are decommissioned.

40: Reference: Section L, Proposal Files; Volume 1, Factor 1 – Safety Record. (Pg. 44 of 56) Point leading to the need for clarification: The third sentence states: The rates must be calculated using the information provided in the 300 and 300-A logs and the tabulated summary must include enough explanation to allow the reader to easily reproduce and validate the calculations.

Question: It is assumed by the statement that the OSHA 300 logs are to be included with the submittal as evidence. With offerors including team member OSHA logs, this introduces a number of documents that may exceed 10 pages. Will USACE consider the submittal of OSHA 300 Logs not counting toward the page count limitation?

Note: The amendment 1 response to Question 2 states that EMR letters are not included in the page count. However, this does not specifically state the OSHA 300 & 300A logs for 3 years; which will translate to 6 pages per company.

Answer: OSHA logs are not included in the page count. See Amendment 03.

41: Solicitation page 45 of 56 in the RFP): “Beryllium remediation experience may be rated more favorably.” AND “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.”

Question/Clarification: Please confirm that a prime offeror or team subcontractor’s submitted project experience that demonstrates implementing or working under Be H&S Programs/other Be-specific project controls—but which does not include remediation of Be-impacted soils—would not be considered relevant per the RFP requirements.

Answer: See response to #24.

42: PWS Section 7.5.2 requires the destruction of six (6) bldgs, and additional ancillary structures. The Historical drawings do not provide a reference for the integrity of the structures at present time to determine means and methods to deconstruct the structures and remove/dispose of asbestos, contaminated paint, PCBS and other hazardous materials in or on the structures. Can the USACE confirm if an Engineering Survey has been performed in accordance with EM 384-1-1, Section 23.A.01, and provide copies of the report for each building?

Answer: Official Surveys have not been performed to date.

43: PWS Section 7.5.2 requires the destruction of six (6) bldgs, and additional ancillary structures. If an Engineering survey of the structures is not available, we respectfully request that the government provide pictures of the inside and outside of each structure to enable the offeror to ascertain current conditions and develop a BOE and cost for completion of Tab E.

Answer: See response to #7.

44: Task 2e, CLIN 001 consists of soil remediation of 2,855 dry tons under the production building. Amendment 2, Q&A 35 states that the concrete slab foundation of the production building will remain onsite after deconstruction of the building by the current contractor. Please provide details on the construction of the concrete slab foundation.

Answer: Concrete slab details are provided in attached drawings (Main Production Building Slab Details_Redacted.pdf).

45: The historical drawings provided as Attachment 1.3 of the PWS are illegible. We respectfully request that the government provide revised copies that can be used for purposes of determining building details for purposes of costing deconstruction.

Answer: Additional historical drawings are provided with this response set.

46: PWS Section 5.3.5 On-Site Laboratory – Please confirm that DoD ELAP is the only accreditation required for on-site laboratory analyses and that no additional accreditations/certifications are applicable (e.g, AIHA, State of Ohio, etc.).

Answer: Analysis of personal breathing zone samples must be performed in accordance with EM 385-1-1 2014 (06.A.03 Testing and Monitoring), “Laboratories used for analysis shall be accredited by nationally recognized bodies, such as the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), for the type of analysis performed.” This can be done at an off-site laboratory with the required accreditation.

47: PWS Section 7.5 Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal, Subsection 7.5.3.2.1 2nd bullet: States “Off-site transportation and disposal at a facility that will meet the USACE requirements identified in FUSRAP Radioactive Waste Disposal Strategy Document Development Guidance (USACE 2018). A list of facilities currently accepted by USACE to receive FUSRAP wastes is provided in table 2.” Please confirm that absent of any building characterization that all building deconstruction waste and debris is assumed to require disposal as FUSRAP waste.

Answer: Correct, assume all building deconstruction waste and debris are FUSRAP waste.

48: PWS Section 7.5 Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal, Subsection 7.5.2.1.1 Work Requirements: States “Provide all labor, material, equipment, facilities, and incidentals to deconstruct onsite structures. Neither the PWS, nor Section 02 41 00 describe the end state of this activity. Can the government provide additional clarity to end state of this activity? Does the deconstruction activity include removal of slabs, subgrade structures, concrete, ancillary foundations, underground utilities, etc. and to what depth?

Answer: Assume deconstruction of all other buildings/structures will include the slabs and foundations to surrounding grade. Restoration of these areas will include topsoil placement and seeding.

49: PWS Section 7.5 Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal, Subsection 7.5.2.1.1 Work Requirements. Can the government provide specify how to abandon transitional piping extending from the buildings to manholes and other underground site utility systems?

Answer: The following has been added to Section 02 41 00 (Deconstruction):

“3.3.1 Abandoning Pipes and Structures Abandon underground pipes, manholes, catch basins or inlets encountered during deconstruction. Clean each structure thoroughly. Plug existing pipe connections with brick or concrete block masonry, or with any USACE-approved grade of concrete. Backfill manholes and catch basins with clean fill approved by the Contracting Officer’s Representative. Refer to Section 02 61 13 (EXCAVATION AND HANDLING OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL, Table 2.2-1).

50: PWS Section 7.5 Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal, Subsection 7.5.2.1.1 Work Requirements, Small Structures: Can the government provide additional clarity to end state of this activity? Does the demolition of pump and well houses include removal of pumps and abandonment of pump casings?

Answer: Demolition of the west well pump house does not include removal of the pump and abandonment of the well casing. The east well is used to supply non-potable water for sinks, toilets, laboratory use, and make-up water for dust suppression after treatment through a 7.5 gpm system. The pump house for this well is no longer present.

51: PWS Section 7.5 Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal, Subsection 7.5.2.1.1 Work Requirements: Can the government provide the state of Ohio registered well logs for all wells in the pump houses and well houses?

Answer: Construction information for former production wells PW-(W) and PW-(E) is provided in Section 33 51 39. These wells do not contain FUSRAP contamination and will not be abandoned.

52: PWS Section 7.5 Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal, Subsection 7.5.2.1.1 Work Requirements: Can the government provide additional information concerning any abandoned items, or material storage inside each building that will need to be removed and disposed of as part of this CLIN to enable the offerors to develop accurate costing.

Answer: See response to #29.

53: PLN 5500 Site Operations Plan for the Luckey Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program Remediation Project, Page 21 of 139, 7th paragraph: States “Previous surveys and analyses conducted as part of the Phase II characterization to investigate the potential for FUSRAP contaminants within the on-site buildings included a radiological survey, beryllium and radionuclide swipe surveys, and analysis of bulk dust samples” The offerors were unable to find a “Phase II Characterization Report” on the Buffalo FUSRAP site for Luckey under Reports, please indicate if the “Phase II Characterization Report” is a reference to the Remediation Investigation Report dated Sept, 2000 or provide offerors access to the referenced report.

Answer: The Phase II report has been placed on https://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/Missions/HTRW/FUSRAP/Luckey-Site/ 54: PWS Section 7.5 Building Deconstruction and Waste Transportation/Disposal, Subsection 7.5.2.1.1 Work Requirements: Please clarify if underground utilities described in the PLN 5500 Work Plan associated with building are part of the deconstruction scope and if so identify requirements for abandonment, sealing or removal.

Answer: See response to #49.

55: Reference: Attachment 1 Performance Work Scope, Section 7.5 (through 8.0) Point leading to the need for clarification: Safe work planning and estimating based upon limited data availability at the time of bidding.

Question: Is there additional information on the amounts or quantities of asbestos, lead paint or other items that need abating prior to the building demolition? If no current information is available, is there an estimated quantity that each bidder should utilize to provide comparable proposals?

Answer: See response to #6.

56: Reference: Attachment 1 Performance Work Scope, Section 7.5 (through 8.0) Point leading to the need for clarification: Establishing base parameters for bid evaluation purposes.

Question: For task 5, are bidders to assume that the removal of foundations, slabs, and soils (to a specific depth) are part of the remediation activities?

Answer: See response to #30.

57: Reference: Attachment 1 Performance Work Scope, Section 7.5 (through 8.0) Point leading to the need for clarification: From the aerial and pre-bid meeting pictures, it appears the existing buildings may be structurally compromised and may not allow for safe removal of asbestos, paint or other items from the interiors prior to demolition.

Question: Should the bidders assume that the buildings are structurally sound and can be abated or assume that the regulated materials should be demolished in-place and disposed with the remaining debris?

Answer: See response to #6.

58: Reference: PLN 5506 – Water Management Plan, General information Questions:

a. Will USACE please provide photos of the inside of the water treatment trailer showing the processing equipment?

Answer: Photos of the water treatment system trailer interior are not available. A vendor supplied O&M manual is attached.

b. Will USACE please indicate if chemical treat operations are currently used to meet site NPDES discharge criteria (pH adjustment, chemical precipitation, flocculation, carbon adsorption, etc.)?

Answer: Wastewater treatment system components are described in the O&M manual and illustrated in the attached drawing set (Luckey PID 04-16-20 As Record Complete 20200416.pdf). The following chemicals are used:

· Aluminum chlorhydrate is added at a rate of 4.1 gallons per hour (760 mg/L at 30 gpm) to precipitate soluble metals.

· Calcium chloride is added at a rate of 1.1 gallons per hour (180 mg/L at 30 gpm) to precipitate fluoride.

· Polymer is added at a rate of 1 to 2 gallons per hour (580 to 1,160 mg/L at 30 gpm) to flocculate and settle solids.

· Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) is added to remove NH3-N (An 8:1 NaOCl to NH3-N ratio is used). Removal of residual chlorine is accomplished by aeration in effluent tanks 1, 2, 3, and 4.

· Reverse osmosis membrane preservative (SafeguardTM 100).

· Antiscalant (VitecTM 300)

· Cleaner (RoCleanTM P111) The following Aquamark, Inc. products are used:

· AQ-110

· AQ-116

· AQ-106

· AQ-109

A recent evaluation of the treatment system determined that the chemical regimen (polymer and flocculant) appears to be significantly overdosing.

c. Will USACE please provide representative wastewater analytical data for both pre- and post-treatment?

Answer: Wastewater treatment system analytical data is attached.

d. Will USACE please verify that the current 30 gpm operating capacity of the wastewater treatment system is adequate to meet site treatment capacity needs and that it is suitable to meet NPDES chemical/radiological discharge criteria?

Answer: The 30 gpm operating capacity is adequate to meet treatment needs during warm and dry periods (typically the summer season). It cannot adequately meet treatment capacity needs during wet and cool periods. Excess water is trucked off-site and disposed in a sewer manhole connected to the City of Toledo POTW. A copy of the discharge authorization is attached.

e. Will USACE please the operability/functionality of water treatment equipment (i.e. is all equipment currently operational)?

Answer: All equipment is currently operational.

f. Will USACE please provide the frequency of cleaning and approximate volume of sludge recovered from 265K gallon water holding tank, weir tank, and inclined plate clarifier?

Answer: The weir tank and Modutank have not been cleaned since the start of remedial activities in April 2018. Each is scheduled to be cleaned this summer. The influent tanks are cleaned annually.

Sludge from the inclined plate clarifier is dewatered in bags on the S1 area loadout pad. The sludge is then added to the contaminated soil waste stream that is disposed off-site.

g. Is USACE able to provide annual cost of replacement filter elements and other consumables (as applicable)?

Answer: Approximate operating costs (excluding labor) are summarized below.

· Chemicals ($17,100/month [summer] and $14,900/month [winter]).

· Consumables (filters, alarm plan, spare parts, repairs) ($6,300/month).

h. Is USACE able to provide the average annual treated wastewater volume for the past 5 years?

Answer: Treated water volumes since the start of remedial activities in April 2018 are listed below.

· On-site treatment (3,300,000 gallons).

· Off-site treatment at POTW (2,362,326 gallons).

59: Could you please provide clarification on the 51% small business amount? Do to the limits on where the waste can be disposed and the fee for that, does the 51% apply to the full value of contract or just the portion un-related to disposal?

Answer: The 51% applies to total labor, not total value of the contract. The T&D labor does apply, and it is the contractor’s responsibility to determine that value of labor. If an offeror uses a small business for T&D, then that labor applies to the small business portion.

60: Please provide list of the DOT descriptions that are to be used to transport Luckey wastes.

Answer: See response to #5 for excavated wastes. Other wastes incidental to operations are to use appropriate DOT proper shipping names (vehicle fluids, waste batteries, etc.).

61: Please provide completed manifest examples for each waste stream that is currently shipped off-site.

Answer: See response to #5 for excavated wastes.

62: Is all the waste shipped as hazardous material?

Answer: See response to #61.

63: Per DOT, will USACE allow alternate packaging to the IP-1 rated flexible bulk inner packaging be used if it accomplishes the same safety goals?

Answer: DOT and disposal facility packaging requirement must be met, and alternative configurations can be considered.

64: Are hard tops or tarp tops being used for the outer package and transportation of the 25-yard roll-offs?

Answer: Tarp tops are in use.

65: Can alternate outer bulk containers like dump trailers be used for these roll-offs?

Answer: Containers must integrate with the remediation work flow. DOT and disposal facility packaging requirement must be met, and alternative configurations can be considered.

66: Waste Management, Northwood, OH was an original option for NORM TENORM < 7 pCi/g and could accept Be that was packaged correctly. Why are they no longer an option?

Answer: The USACE Radiation Safety Support Team (RSST) audits radioactive waste disposal facilities, focusing on design, permits and licenses, the effectiveness of their safeguards and controls, and the level and quality of their community engagements. Waste Management of Northwood, OH was not a viable facility. The four (4) facilities in good standing are US Ecology Belleville (incorporating Wayne Disposal and Michigan Waste Treatment), US Ecology Idaho, EnergySolutions Clive, and Waste Control Specialists.

67: In Section 5.2.1 of the current Site Operations Plan, the current contractor planned to remove lead-contaminated soil from the western two-thirds of the S1 storage area footprint. Can USACE confirm that this has been done?

Answer: 978 tons of contaminated soil from the S1 area were disposed off-site. Deeper contaminated soils in the eastern section were left in-place.

68: Per Section 5.2.1 of the current Site Operations Plan, the contaminated soils in the eastern one-third of the S1 area was to be left undisturbed and covered with a layer of gravel. Can USACE confirm that no soils have been remediated in the eastern one-third of S1?

Answer: See response to #67 69: In the Luckey Site Walkthrough published in Amendment 1 document, there is a bullet that reads: “Don’t wait until the last minute to submit proposals. There is a delay from when the proposal is uploaded to DOD SAFE and when it’s transmitted to the government.” Please provide an estimate of the length of the delay as this is important to our submittal planning.

Answer: It will depend on the size of the file. Recommend submitting at least an hour before the due date/time. The Contracting Officer will confirm receipt after received.

70: Page 47 of the Solicitation states, “The offeror’s cost proposal must contain labor categories, labor hours per category, labor rates for the prime contractor and each subcontractor (over $250K estimated billing), material, travel, equipment, and other direct costs required to perform the work included in the PWS utilizing the proposed technical approach.” Is the $250k threshold based on services provided for the Base Bid or is it the Base Bid and all Options?

Answer: Base Bid and all Options.

71: The Transportation and Disposal quantities in Section B of the Solicitation differ from T&D quantities provided in Attachment+7_Bid+Schedule. Please provide the T&D quantities that should be used in our bid.

Answer: See Amendment 03 for changes.

72: Reference Attachment 7. The bid schedule includes Unit Cost, Direct Cost and Total Cost which includes fee. Should the Unit Cost include fee?

Answer: See attached bid schedule.

73: The Pre-proposal conference slide number 5 states that trailers will be available for use in the new remediation contract. Please provide the dimensions of the lab trailers that are going to remain on-site.

Answer: A list of leased and government furnished equipment/items that will be available was provided in the response to round 2 questions. It has been updated and a new list is attached. The following on-site laboratory trailers/facilities will be available:

· One 12 ft by 56 ft trailer.

· Two 12 ft by 60 ft trailers.

· One 24 ft by 56 ft trailer.

· One 8 ft by 20 ft Conex box that has been modified for sample preparation activities.

74: Is a Payment & Performance Bond required for this contract?

Answer: No 75: Given that Nuclear Indemnification is not included in the RFP, is this contract covered by Indemnification Under Public Law 85-804?

Answer: No 76: Do other liabilities and consequential damage limited (or capped), other than the standard limitation of liability clause 52.246-25? If so, what is the cap value?

Answer: No 77: Is PLN-5506 Water Management Plan Rev2 available for reference? Only Rev1 and Rev3 have been provided. If RV 2 is not available to share, what additional information exists in it that we should be made aware of?

Answer: PLN-5506 Rev. 2 is not available. Only minor changes were made for Rev. 3.

78: Each Interim Change Notice approved by USACE in the PWS references QAP-3061. We do not see this provided in PLN-5502, Rev2 – Contractor Quality Control Plan. If approved by USACE, can this please be provided for our reference?

Answer: QAP-3061 is a reference to the contractor’s internal document. It is not relevant to work that would be performed by another contractor.

79: Within PLN-5506, Rev1 or Rev3 – Water Management Plan, there is no information related to the current/operating WWTP system. Is there an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manual for the WWTP plant? If yes, please provide it for our reference.

Answer: See response to #15.

80: Reference Interim Change Notice-002 in PLN-5506, Rev3 – Water Management Plan. Relating to OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF WATER, it states that a request for approval of over the road tanker trucks to transport potentially contaminated waters off-site to an approved acceptance facility. Further, it states that option will only be utilized in instances where excavation areas become impacted with water to a point where the onsite WWTP cannot reasonably process the volume of potentially contaminated waters.

Question. Since the contractor submitted this ICN on 6/5/19, has this option been utilized? If yes, what were the circumstances? How much wastewater was transported and disposed off-site (e.g., at a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW))? Were water samples submit for analytical before or after disposal? If yes, where are the results posted/are they available for reference? By whom was the wastewater transported? To what disposal site/at what cost ($/gallon)?

Answer: Yes, this option has been utilized. See response to #58.

81: Please provide the following references (related to off-site water management).

· Work Instruction 5518 (Offsite Transportation and Disposal of Collected Site Waters Plan)

· Work Instruction 5507 (Waste Management, Transportation, and Disposal Plan) Answer:

· Work Instruction (WI) 5518 is attached.

· WI 5507 cited above appears to refer to the Waste Management, Transportation, and Disposal Plan, which is PLN-5507.

82: What level of PPE will be required for well abandonment? Are there any specific respirator requirements due to the Be contamination?

Answer: PPE used during well abandonment must be in accordance with the contractor’s Accident Prevention Plan/Site Safety and Health Plan. The contractor’s Safety and Health Manager (SHM) will perform an exposure assessment (EA) of the contaminant(s) expected to be encountered during well abandonment. This EA along with the control zone that the work will be performed in, will determine the PPE (including respiratory protection), training and medical surveillance required to perform the activity. These requirements will be indicated in the AHA for well abandonment.

83: What level of PPE will be required when the well drilling is conducted? Are there any specific requirements due to the Be contamination?

Answer: PPE used during well drilling must be in accordance with the contractor’s Accident Prevention Plan/Site Safety and Health Plan. The contractor’s Safety and Health Manager (SHM) will perform an exposure assessment (EA) of the contaminant(s) expected to be encountered during well drilling. This EA along with the control zone that the work will be performed in, will determine the PPE (including respiratory protection), training and medical surveillance required to perform the activity. These requirements will be indicated in the AHA for well drilling.

84: Per Section 5.2.1 of the current Site Operations Plan, the current contractor planned to remove lead-contaminated soil from the western two-thirds of the S1 storage area footprint. Please confirm that this has been done.

Answer: See response to #67.

85: Per Section 5.2.1 of the current Site Operations Plan, the contaminated soils in the eastern one-third of the S1 area was to be left undisturbed and covered with a layer of gravel. Please confirm that no soils have been remediated in the eastern one-third of S1.

Answer: See response to #68.

86: Reference Cost Volume, pages 47 and 48. Please clarify what the Offeror must submit and what subcontractors must submit in their proposals. Specifically, we understand that Attachment 8 is required of all offerors who will perform work greater than $250k. However, do subcontractors also need to submit their “Defense Contract Audit Agency/Defense Contract Management Agency (DCAA/DCMA) approved billing rates and/or forward pricing rate recommendations and/or agreements, if available” and “Submit evidence of an EVMS in accordance with the requirements included in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause 252.234-7001, paragraph (a)”?

Answer: Only the prime contractor or managing partner of the Joint Venture needs to provide evidence of EVMS. Team subcontractors shall submit their “Defense Contract Audit Agency/Defense Contract Management Agency (DCAA/DCMA) approved billing rates and/or forward pricing rate recommendations and/or agreements, if available 87: Reference Task 4 Demobilization. For pricing purposes, what should contractors assume the final disposition of all government owned equipment, facilities, etc. is?

Answer: Assume all government furnished equipment, facilities, etc is disposed of by the contractor.

88: Plug and abandon of all the wells that sit in planned remediation area(s) in one campaign or do we perform well plug and abandon as we move from one designated remediation area to another?

Answer: Wells within the remediation footprint are abandoned as the work progresses from one remediation area to another.

89: Should the NEW wells, which are required to be installed across the site/within designed remediation areas, be installed in the same exact surveyed location or same general area (i.e., within remediation area/site boundaries)?

Answer: New well locations will be determined by USACE prior to the start of site restoration (PWS Section 7.2.7).

90: The current Waste Management Plan states that USACE will be provided drafts of shipping documents 7 days prior to shipment. Please provide the timeline for the contractor to receive signed documents back from USACE.

Answer: The contractor receives the USACE signed shipping documents when the shipments leave the site.

91: Reference Attachment 8. Task 1-WBS 331XX01 detail tab provides a fee line item for Labor-Prime and Labor-Sub. The same tab states Total ODCs-NO FEE (no fee line item for travel, materials and equipment). On Summary-Task 1-WBS 331XX01 tab there is a fee line item beneath the SUBTOTAL of all the cost elements. Please confirm which cost elements i.e. prime labor, sub labor, ODCS, travel, materials, equipment are fee bearing. Is the fee to be captured at the detail level or only the summary level?

Answer: The fee should be captured at the summary level. There is no restriction on what cost elements can be fee bearing.

92: PLN-5511 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, version 3 (11/21/19) is provided as a reference, but Versions 1 and 2 are missing? Unless all content/elements of Versions 1 and 2 are in Version 3, can Versions 1 and 2 please be provided for reference?

Answer: Only current versions of the work plans are available.

93: New Luckey site beryllium variance.

A revised beryllium variance from EM 385-1-1, Section 06.A.01 a, Exposure Standards is attached.

Luckey FUSRAP Site, Leased and Government Furnished Equipment/Items Available for Contract W912P-20-R-0004 (Rev. 1)

Village of Luckey, OH

· Furniture included

· Furniture not included

Luckey Site

Trailers/Infrastructure

· Furniture included

· Furniture not included

· Furniture not included

· EPSOM TM-U295 printer

75’ x 50’ 100’ x 170’ 70’ x 120’ Government furnished

· Potable water

· Gray water

· Process water

· Communications

· Electric (includes transformer and main distribution panel)

· Lights