SF 30 AMD0004.pdf

W81G6610424231

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, SOLIICATION NO. W912P6-11-R-0008, OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT SERVICES PROJECT, INDIANA HARBOR & CANAL CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY in EAST CHICAGO, INDIANA.

THIS AMENDMENT DOES RESULT IN AN EXTENSION TO THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE.

DESCRIPTION CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 22

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Aug-2011

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912P6-11-R-0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Jul-2011

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

19-Aug-2011

CODE

U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, CHICAGO

111 NORTH CANAL STREET SUITE 600

CHICAGO IL 60606-7206

W912P6 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912P6-11-R-0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

(End of Summary of Changes)

The following items are applicable to this modification:

A. PROPOSAL DUE DATE: The Proposal Due Date is EXTENDED by this Amendment; therefore, Contractor’s proposals must be furnished to the USACE by 4:30 pm CDT on 31 August 2011 to be considered timely submitted. Detailed information regarding the submission of proposals is located in SECTION 00100 of the Solicitation document.

B. AMENDED PROJECT SPECIFICATION SECTIONS: The following Specification Sections have been amended, changes are delineated by strike-through and underlining. Offerors shall replace the affected pages delineated below with the corresponding revised pages that are attached hereto.

1. SECTION 01 10 00.00 03 GENERAL PROVISIONS, Paragraph 1.24 TRAFFIC CONTROL, (in response to Question 27) – Added paragraph regarding contractor coordination with other parties and delays during dredging.

a. Add page 15 to the existing page 15

2. SECTION 01 57 20.02 03 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR INDIANA –

Add Table 1 which summarizes the Contractor's periodic environmental reporting requirements.

3. SECTION 33 24 13.02 03, Paragraph 3.1.4.1 Flow Monitoring, – Added sentence regarding daily flow monitoring.

a. Replace pages 4-6.

4. SECTION 35 20 23.00 03 MECHANICAL DREDGING, TRANSPORTATION,

AND DISPOSAL, Paragraph 3.4.2 Water Management in the CDF During Dredging, (in response to Question 21) – Clarified 2 ft pond of water in CDF.

5. SECTION 35 20 23.00 03 MECHANICAL DREDGING, TRANSPORTATION,

AND DISPOSAL, Paragraph 3.4.4 Sediment Placement in the CDF, (in response to Question 26) – Clarified double-wall pipe requirement.

6. SECTION 35 20 23.00 03 MECHANICAL DREDGING, TRANSPORTATION,

AND DISPOSAL, Paragraph 3.6.4 Salvage, – Added language regarding cleaning and management of salvaged material.

a. Replace pages 13-19.

7. SECTION 44 10 00 AIR MONITORING, second paragraph of 2.3.3 Air Monitor

Location, (in response to Question 70) – Clarified amount and location of real time air monitors.

8. SECTION 44 10 00 AIR MONITORING, Paragraph 3.2 OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, (in response to Question 71) – Clarified time duration of monitors to record data.

9. SECTION 44 10 00 AIR MONITORING, Paragraph 3.6 PRE-DREDGE AND CDF OPERATION REAL TIME MONITORING, (in response to Question 71) – Clarified monitoring period. Removed “Baseline” from titles of paragraphs 3.6, 3.6.1, and 3.6.2.

a. Replace pages 7-14.

10. SECTION 44 41 13.10 03 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, Paragraph 1.5

GROUNDWATER TREATMENT PLANT, (in response to Questions 73, 74 & 86)

– Clarified use of two different types of water treatment plants.

11. SECTION 44 41 13.10 03, Paragraph 3.2.1 Clean Water Test, (in response to Question 52) – Clarified potable water source and testing.

a. Replace pages 7-11.

C. AMENDED PROJECT DRAWING SHEETS: The below drawing sheets have been amended; therefore, offerors shall replace the affected sheets with the corresponding revised sheets attached hereto.

1. G-04 – Deleted crane pad on north dike of east cell.

2. G-04 – Relocated proposed oil boom to extend along canal wall from property line to slurry wall at the southwest corner of the site.

D. USACE RESPONSE’S TO CONTRACTOR’S INQUIRIES: Provided below are the USACE’s responses to Contractor inquiries. The blocks of inquiries represent the questions that have been received from the issuance of the Proposal Package through 22 July 2011.

(1) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Is there a bid item for emissions control and other response actions, or are these activities incidental to another line item?

USACE RESPONSE: There is no contract line item for air emissions control activities.

Actions in response to exceedences of air and water quality requirements are incidental to line items 0001AZ and 0001BL, respectively, for the base year. (Identical bid items for the option years have different item numbers).

(2) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTIONS: Gregg said that the estimated value of the dredging work is $5-10 million per year. Does that figure include water treatment, air monitoring and the other facility operations duties?

USACE RESPONSE: No; the estimated value of the dredging work is for purely "dredging activities," which does not include water treatment, air monitoring or the other facility operations duties.

(3) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Is it possible to order a fraction of a bid item?

USACE RESPONSE: Is it possible to order a fraction of a bid item? No, contractors MUST bid the entire quantity to be considered responsive to the RFP.

Refer to Section L of the RFP document.

(4) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: How far in advance will the contractor know what work is going to be ordered?

USACE RESPONSE: Refer to FAR clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, which discuss how the option terms will be exercised. Note that, the Contractor will be provided a 60 day preliminary notice on the Government’s intent to exercise an option year.

(5) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: What is the possibility that the proposal deadline will be delayed?

USACE RESPONSE: The proposal deadline will be extended until August 31, 2011.

(6) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Will this contract continue to be funded if an appropriations bill is not signed into law and USACE is being funded under a continuing resolution?

USACE RESPONSE: Task Orders will be awarded against the contract as funding is provided to USACE.

(7) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Are there a minimum or maximum number of pages recommended/required for the proposals?

USACE RESPONSE: There is no minimum nor maximum number of pages required for the proposal. The Contractor should not include extraneous information. Please refer to the selection and evaluation criteria starting on page 175 of 194 of the solicitation for complete instruction and conditions for submittal of offers.

(8) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: I requested the CDF Wastewater Treatability Study (Oct 2004) and the MWH Treatability Study (2005) but never received any response.

USACE RESPONSE: The documents are now provided at ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/lrc/Indiana-Harbor-Facility-Operations-and-Dredging/.

(9) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Until when is the IGWTP currently on site going to remain in operation?

USACE RESPONSE: The current contract for the groundwater treatment plant on site goes through December 2011. USACE is considering extending the contract, possibly until April 2012, to allow for additional transition time, however the intent is to have the facility operation contractor start groundwater treatment as soon as possible after contract (task order) award.

(10) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: What kind of pumping rate are we getting right now?

USACE RESPONSE: The treatment plant has been operating at a range from 180 to 245 gpm.

(11) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Why did USACE change the capacity of the WWTP from 200 gpm to 300 gpm?

USACE RESPONSE: The capacity was changed due to uncertainty in the groundwater response to the initial filling of the CDF. Given the current operating conditions for the groundwater treatment plant, a plant capacity of 200 gpm is anticipated to be adequate for the current conditions. When dredging operations initially begin, hydraulic placement of the sediment will result in an initial large volume of water entering the unsealed bottom CDF. If there are difficulties in obtaining an even layer of sediment across the bottom of the CDF, the long term infiltration rate could increase. Groundwater levels must be controlled for environmental and engineering concerns, and an increase in capacity of the WWTP allows for more groundwater pumping from the gradient system if needed.

(12) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: The WWTP piping is required to be above ground;

is there a required height at which it must be placed?

USACE RESPONSE: A clay cap was constructed on site to encapsulate the contaminated soils underneath and provide a clean work surface. No trenching will be permitted on the CDF site. The WWTP pipes are required to be above ground in order to prevent disturbance to the clay cap, but there is no required height at which the pipe must be placed.

(13) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Is the overdepth in the TSCA hotspots maintenance dredging or virgin material?

USACE RESPONSE: USACE believes that the material is all similar, fine grained, oily sediment in the areas additional depth is required for the TSCA hotspots.

The original sampling report is provided at ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/lrc/Indiana- Harbor-Facility-Operations-and-Dredging/; the field logs include notations on the material type. If hardpan or previously undredged material were to be encountered, USACE agrees that would represent a changed condition.

(14) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Is the TSCA cell permitted, and if so, how?

USACE RESPONSE: USACE is in the process of obtaining risk based approval by USEPA, for disposal of TSCA material in the IHC CDF. No TSCA regulated material will be dredged until after the permit is obtained, anticipated to be 2012 or later. USACE anticipates modifying the contract to add the TSCA permit when it has been obtained, and to do the TSCA dredging sometime after that.

Reference Section 01 57 20.02 03, paragraph 1.9.

(15) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: What happens if the Contractor samples sediment with [PCB]>50ppm and discovers a new TSCA hotspot?

USACE RESPONSE: There is no requirement for the Contractor to sample sediment, for example to determine the residual concentration, because this is not a remediation project but is rather a navigational maintenance dredging project. USACE anticipates sampling the anticipated subsequent year’s dredging on a regular basis, and will provide that information to the Contractor when available. The initial dredging areas have already been sampled, and the sediment data are included as Table 2 in Section 35 20 23.00 03.

USACE does not anticipate finding additional TSCA related sediment, based on past sampling. TSCA regulated material has only been identified in two portions of the canal, and the material is confined to the hot spots identified. However, if additional TSCA regulated material is identified, the requirements for dredging, disposal, and capping the location would be the same as what is required for the identified areas. There is a bid item in each option year that would cover the dredging of additional TSCA regulated material if needed.

(16) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Do we expect to dredge TSCA material in every year (there’s a bid item in every year)?

USACE RESPONSE: No. Based on sampling data, USACE only knows of TSCA regulated material in 5 discrete spots (located in two areas of the canal.) At this time, the total volume of TSCA regulated sediment is approximately 60,000 cyd (including the additional depth and sloughage).

There is uncertainty as to the timing of the TSCA material dredging, because USACE is still in the process of obtaining the permit from USEPA. Also, USACE would prefer to dredge all of the TSCA regulated material in one year, however the dredging schedule is dependent on future federal funding. For these reasons, TSCA material is included as a bid item in each option year. Note that if additional TSCA regulated material was found, the inclusion of the bid item in each option year allows the flexibility to dredge the additional material.

(17) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: USACE districts in St. Paul and elsewhere have added fuel escalation clauses to their multi-year contracts to ensure that bidders are making the same assumptions on this issue. Would Chicago USACE consider doing this?

USACE RESPONSE: As stated in Amendment No. 1, this being a multiple year contract, contractors shall escalate their fuel costs for the out-years when bidding on this contract. Thus, no escalation clause will be incorporated into the contract.

(18) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Please explain the 4 monthly and 5 daily water quality violations from the IGWTP.

USACE RESPONSE: For two of the parameters, Chlorine and Endrin, we have the following explanation:

The violations state that the limit for Chlorine was exceeded June, July, August, September, October, and November 2010. Our treatment plant contractor is using a chlorine detection instrument with a detection limit of

0.01 mg/L. The LOD and LOQ requirements for Chlorine in the NPDES permit are 0.02 and 0.06 mg/L, respectively. The plant effluent has been consistently recording 0.01 mg/L of chlorine, which should be interpreted as <0.01 mg/L. The Chlorine readings were recorded as 0.01 mg/L in the 2010 Discharge Monitoring Reports, while they should have been recorded as <0.01 mg/L. A Chlorine level of <0.01 mg/L is not an exceedance of the NPDES permit limit.

Regarding Endrin, the exceedances in 2010 were due to the analytical laboratory not being able to achieve the required reporting limits. Endrin levels ranging from <0.05 ug/L to < 0.4 ug/L were reported in 2010. The LOD and LOQ requirements for Endrin in the NPDES permit are 0.006 and 0.019 ug/L, respectively. Our treatment plant contractor switched analytical lab in January 2011. After changing laboratory, Endrin levels of <0.0086 ug/L (less than the required LOQ) have been reported in the plant effluent. Although the earlier results did not have a sufficiently low LOQ to demonstrate the lack of Endrin in the discharge stream, we believe that Endrin was not present in concentrations above the LOQ and that there was no discharge of Endrin.

The groundwater quality is extremely variable across the site; and the greater than anticipated variations in influent quality result in variable loading to the plant that is difficult to anticipate and treat. Several actions have been or are being implemented to address previous violations. These actions are summarized below.

The treatment plant contractor added a midstream sampling point between the two carbon tanks in an attempt to capture breakthrough.

Frequency of backflushing of carbon was increased. In addition, an organoclay media filter was added at the head of the treatment. The goal of the organoclay was to aid in oil and benzene removal.

The entire plant including the inside of the carbon tanks, the frac tanks, and all piping and connections were pressure washed. The influent surge tank was emptied. Pumps were cleaned. The purpose of the cleaning was to remove residue that may interfere with the treatment processes. The frac tank was re-piped in a different configuration to give chlorine more contact time with ammonia.

Target bleach residual was increased to 20% to enhance ammonia removal;

sodium bisulfite rate was increased to remove chlorine.

The treatment plant includes two carbon filters in series. The procedure was changed where the first carbon filter is changed every two weeks or whenever more than 2 ug/L of benzene is detected in the effluent. The second carbon filter is switched to the first and a new carbon filter is added as the second filter. This carbon changeout frequency was increased significantly compared to the design carbon replacement schedule.

The violations stem at least partly from the treatment plant set-up, which had originally anticipated the presence of a large equalization basin. A solution moving forward is to add an equalization basin to even out the influent concentration to minimize peaks of concentrations that the plant would have to handle. The new equalization basin would provide sufficient capacity to achieve holding time of approximately 24 hours. A skimmer may be added to the basin to remove oil prior to the treatment plant. A third carbon filter is also being considered as a final polishing step; the plan is to add the new filter to follow the existing two carbon filters in series.

(19) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: How many air monitors should there be and what type?

USACE RESPONSE: The number and type of air monitors are to be selected by the Contractor, however the real time air monitoring must cover the entire CDF and the monitors must be able to achieve the capabilities given in Section 44 10

00. The Contractor is to propose the air monitors for government approval.

(20) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Is the air monitoring just for naphthalene and particulates? No other parameters?

USACE RESPONSE: Correct, the real time air monitoring is only for particulates and for naphthalene. Particulates are being monitored since Lake County, Indiana is a non-attainment area for particulates under the Clean Air Act. The CDF is potentially an area source if the sediment were to be exposed and dry.

Particulate monitoring and the maintenance of a pond over the sediment are intended to address those issues.

Naphthalene is a surrogate for all volatile constituents in the sediment, for the purposes of air monitoring. It was selected based on the high sediment concentration and volatility of the compound, as well as for the distinctive odor and potential human health impacts. The sediment contains many other compounds, however most are either in low concentrations or are not as highly volatile. USACE will continue the current ambient air monitoring that is implemented by USGS, as a means of tracking a greater number of compounds.

(21) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Is it required to maintain 2ft of water in the CDF cells at all time, even during the first year? To achieve this at the beginning should water be pumped directly from the canal to the CDF cells?

USACE RESPONSE: No, the 2 ft of water in the CDF cells is not required during the initial placement of sediment, AS LONG AS ALL AIR EMISSION REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING MET. There needs to be a layer of fine sediment covering the entire cell bottom before the CDF can retain water and keep the pond from entering the groundwater gradient control system. It is expected that canal water will be needed during the first year to help place sediment in the CDF hydraulically. The canal water does not need to be placed in the CDF before sediment placement. Once a layer of sediment covers the entire cell bottom, 2 ft of pounded water will be required.

(22) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Should the dredged material be disposed into the east cell or the west cell?

USACE RESPONSE: The COR shall direct which cell to discharge dredged material. It is anticipated that sediment will be discharged to only one cell within a given year.

(23) How does the Contractor know when to stop treating groundwater and discharge the GCS effluent into the CDF pond?

USACE RESPONSE: USACE COR will inform the contractor as to when groundwater treatment is to cease.

(24) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Where and how can the Contractor decontaminate his barges when he demobilizes?

USACE RESPONSE: USACE is not aware of any decontamination requirements for barges. Additional information on the specific processes is needed before USACE can give a detailed response.

(25) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Who owns the existing IGWTP?

USACE RESPONSE: Clean Harbors owns and operates the plant, under contract with USACE. (Contract number W912P6-07-D-0001)

(26) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Double-walled pipe is required for sediment disposal, but would it be permitted to use single-walled pipe within the CDF?

USACE RESPONSE: All sediment disposal pipe that is outside of the CDF cell, including all piping on land or in the water, must be double walled. Any piping that is inside the CDF cell (past the crest of the exterior dikes) may be single walled. This clarifies the requirement in Amendment 001, Section 35 20 23.00 03, paragraph 3.4.4. which requires all piping used for pumping/placing sediment must be double walled. The intent is that all piping OUTSIDE THE CDF must be double walled. The double-walled piping requirement does not apply to the groundwater or wastewater treatment plant piping.

(27) CONTRACTOR’S If there is a delay in raising the Indianapolis St. bridge or moving the oil boom, is there any recourse for the Contractor? Will the Government compensate the Contractor delays in boom movement?

USACE RESPONSE: The Contractor shall coordinate with INDOT, BP and any other necessary parties as needed to allow for the transport of sediment from the dredge location to the Confined Disposal Facility. The coordination effort for boom removal, bridge opening, or other obstructions is the responsibility of the Contractor. Any delays in the coordination efforts shall be borne 100% by the Contractor and shall not increase the contract in any bid item.

(28) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Where is there electrical supply along the South End?

USACE RESPONSE: Per drwg E-04, there is a 480/277VAC panelboard and 120/208V panelboard labeled items B and D under the distribution equipment schedule. Both panelboards have spaces for breakers as shown on the panelboard schedule on E-04. The location of the panelboards is to the west of the Facility Operations building and garage in drwg E-05.

(29) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Could the debris pad be used for the crane and the crane pad for debris?

USACE RESPONSE: No. Use of the debris pad is exclusively for storing debris— the debris pad is not structurally designed to support a crane. Use of the crane pad is exclusively for the crane—debris is not allowed to be stored on the crane pad.

(30) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: How deep is the Lake George branch?

USAE RESPONSE: The depth is approximately 15’ or greater. Recent bathymetry for this portion of the canal (that was not previously surveyed) is provided at ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/lrc/Indiana-Harbor-Facility-Operations-and-Dredging/.

31) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: What is the seiche effect like in the harbor and canal?

USAE RESPONSE: Lake Michigan water levels are a significant factor in the flow direction and velocity, not only in the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal, but in the West Branch of the Grand Calumet River as well. It was observed in “Summary and Analysis of Flow Stratification Measurements Collected in the Indiana Harbor and Canal, October 2002” (USACE 2004), that stratified flow exists in the system.

As lake levels fluctuate, the top portion of the water column reverses direction toward and away from the lake, while the bottom portion of the water column maintains unidirectional flow toward the lake. Under normal lake level conditions, the net positive flow from the IHC into Lake Michigan exceeds the net negative flow by a ratio of 6:1. High lake level conditions show an approximate 2:1 relationship.

Seiches are caused by pressure and wind. “When storm fronts move rapidly from across a large body of water such as Lake Michigan, air pressure changes and strong downbursts of wind can form one large wave or a series of large waves. The wave or waves will travel across the lake until the seiche reaches shore, where it can be reflected and travel to the opposite shore. The height of the waves depends on the strength of the wind and air pressure contrasts that form the seiche… During spring and summer, small seiches with a height of a few inches to 1 foot regularly strike the Illinois shore of Lake Michigan. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association issues warnings to Lake Michigan mariners and lakeshore residents when weather conditions favor seiche development” (ISGS, 2009). USACE recommends that all vessel operators check regularly with NOAA and the NWS for the Marine Forecast and Hazardous Weather Outlook for Marine Zone: LMZ743.

Seiches: Sudden, Large Waves a Lake Michigan Danger. 2009. Illinois State Geological Survey. http://www.isgs.illinois.edu/sections/engin-coast/lakemich-coastal-seiches.shtml

(32) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Are there offsite lay down areas or docks available for shift changes?

USACE RESPONSE: No. USACE has not identified offsite lay down areas or docks available for shift changes in this contract.

(33) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Is the price evaluation based on the total of the base year plus all option years?

USACE RESPONSE: Yes, the price evaluation is based on the sum of the base period and the four (4) option periods. Refer to Section L of the RFP document, wherein FAR Clause 52.217-5 is located and discusses the price evaluation of options.

(34) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: What is the latest date that questions can be submitted?

USACE RESPONSE: Questions shall be provided ten (10) days prior to the proposal due date to prevent a proposal extension.

(35) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: If the crane pad is located in the east cell, why is debris placement in the west cell?

USACE RESPONSE: Early design concepts placed TSCA material in the west cell and debris in the east cell. Upon award of the Dike 3 contract (Sept. 2009), it was decided that TSCA material would be placed in the east cell and debris would be placed in the west cell. The location of the crane pad was never relocated to the west cell. USACE currently has constructed a crane staging area at the northwest corner of the site outside of the CDF. Therefore, the crane pad on the north end dike has been deleted from the Dredging & Facility Operation civil drawings since the crane will not be stored on top of the dike and can maneuver along the west cell dike to dispose debris.

(36) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Can the safety representative have other duties?

USACE RESPONSE: Yes, as long as the person is not the Quality Control person per specification section 01 35 26.00 03, paragraph 1.5.1.1.

(37) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Please clarify if onsite safety is required 24hours/day?

USACE RESPONSE: There may be time when no personnel are present onsite.

When such is the case, USACE does not expect a safety officer to be there— specifications do not need to be revised to reflect this situation. When limited presence for a very narrow set of onsite duties is required, the contractor shall provide an Accident Prevention Plan to ensure that the limited number of staff would be properly supervised in terms of safety for the time they are onsite.

Depending on the duties and numbers of people, there may be processes put in place that would maintain safety without placing the SSHO on site. It is up to the contractor to convince USACE that they can provide safety at those times.

During dredging activities, a qualified SSHO must be at the work site at all times per specification section 01 35 26.00 03, paragraph 1.5.1.1.

(38) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Can the dredge and offloading operations be performed 24 hours per day?

USACE RESPONSE: Yes. There are no time restrictions for dredging and off-loading operations in the specifications. Note, contractor shall also coordinate with INDOT for raising the Indianapolis Blvd. bridge.

(39) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: What type of power is currently available at the

CDF?

USACE RESPONSE: See response to question #28.

(40) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTIONS: What permits and licenses is the contractor required to obtain?

USACE RESPONSE: USACE is currently aware of the following permit requirements: Indiana DNR pump registration, a TSCA permit, and the permits attached to specification section 01 57 20.02 03. The Contractor is required to obtain the Indiana DNR pump registration and USACE is in the process of obtaining the TSCA permit. The lack of identification of specific requirements by USACE does not relieve the Contractor of the responsibility to meet all Federal, state and local regulations.

(41) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Is service wage the wage requirement for the activities on land?

USACE RESPONSE: The operational functions of the project are covered under the Service wages. The Davis Bacon Act applies to dredge work.

(42) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: The solicitation form states the budget for the dredging portion of the work is $5m - $10m for the base year and each additional year.

Does that mean that mobilization and startup costs are not included in the $5m - $10m budget?

USACE RESPONSE: Dredging mobilization costs and debris management mobilizations are included in the $5m - $10m budget. Project startup costs are not included. However, the actual value of the contract could be as low as the minimum ordering obligation of $300,000 for the base year and $150,000 for each option year.

(43) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: How were the gallons of water to be treated and discharged calculated?

USSACE RESPONSE: For the volume of water from the CDF pond, an explanation is given in section 44 41 13.10 03, paragraph 1.4.2. The volume of water is based on the anticipated long term groundwater pumping rate, the net precipitation (taking evaporation into account), and the anticipated volume of water added from the dredged sediment. The volume given represents the 99th percentile net precipitation over the period of record. Stormwater is anticipated to be the largest fraction of the CDF pond water.

The groundwater volume is based on operating the groundwater treatment plant at a long term pumping rate of 190 gpm, 24 hours a day, for one entire year. This is similar to the current operating conditions, with no dredged sediment in the CDF, and the bottom unsealed.

(44) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Is there a tentative plan for what areas will be dredged during the base year and the following years?

USACE RESPONSE: In general, the intent is to dredge starting at the harbor and to work upstream to the lesser used portions of the channel. Some non-federal dockface areas that are closer to the harbor also would potentially be dredged with the adjacent federal areas. TSCA sediment would be removed as soon as possible, depending on the issuance of a permit by USEPA. The dredging schedule is dependent on funding.

(45) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: At what time of the year will the contractor be notified for the options?

USACE RESPONSE: The Contractor will be provided a 60 day preliminary notice on the Government’s intent to exercise an option period. Thereafter, the Government will have 30 days to award an option prior to expiration of the previous option period.

(46) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Are there any borings or is there any additional information available for the sediment to be removed?

USACE RESPONSE: A great deal of historical information is available, however due to age the information is not considered reliable. In addition to the TSCA sampling by Matrix Environmental in 2007 and by Futurenet Group in September 2010, potential offerors are referred to USEPA publication EPA 905-R96-009, Assessment of Sediment in the Indiana Harbor Area of Concern, July 1996 (available on www.epa.gov). The 2007 and 2010 sampling reports are provided at ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/lrc/Indiana-Harbor-Facility-Operations-and-Dredging/ Note that Table 1 of Section 35 20 23.00 03 also contains a summary of historical sediment information.

(47) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: What is the deadline for questions to be submitted and responded to before the bid submittal date? Will there be an opportunity to ask further questions after the bid walk?

USACE RESPONSE: Questions shall be provided ten (10) days prior to the proposal due date to prevent a proposal extension.

(48) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Please provide the XYZ data from the multibeam survey that OSI completed in 2008 and the design files be provide. In addition to the top of sediment data would like to have the XYZ data of the design and the AutoCAD background files.

USACE RESPONSE: The 2008 survey, including drawings and XYZ data, is provided at ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/lrc/Indiana-Harbor-Facility-Operations-and- Dredging/. Design files will be provided after contract award.

(49) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Please provide a list of the required submittals.

USACE RESPONSE: A list of submittals is provided in the submittal register attached to specification section 01 33 00.

(50) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Specification 352100.03, Section 1.4, says that the real-time turbidity meter must be compliant with EPA Method 180.1 (i.e., tungsten lamp). We are not aware of any 12VDC turbidity sensors on the market that meet this requirement for deployment on a buoy. All sensors we've ever worked with use the ISO 7027 method (i.e., infrared or other source). Is a turbidity meter using ISO 7027 an acceptable alternative?

USACE RESPONSE: Yes.

(51) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Please provide clarification on the USACE response to the experience under 5A. In amendment one the response to the teaming question specifies that the prime and sub experience should not be comingled. There are many prime contractors who have jointly teamed with specific subcontractors on projects similar to this project and this joint experience would fulfill the dredging, water treatment and monitoring experience aspects of the project. We understand the USACE does not want to unduly restrict the number of qualified bidders on this project.

As such, will the USACE consider project experience where teaming partners worked together on similar projects to fulfill these major project requirements? If not, will the USACE consider the experience of individual firms if a Joint Venture is created to propose on this project?

USACE RESPONSE: The Government intends to issue an amendment which will modify the selection criteria to consider both the prime and subcontractor project experience to fulfill the contract requirements. The Contractor will be required to submit an organization chart which identifies specific individuals which fulfill the selection requirements.

(52) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: The specifications state that potable water from off-site must be used for the WWTP clean water test (leak test). Do we have to use potable water or can water from Lake George Canal be used?

USACE RESPONSE: Potable water must be used for the clean water test. A potable water source is available on-site.

(53) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: The specifications state that WWTP effluent that does not meet the discharge limits of the NPDES permit must be discharged to the CDF until the exceedence can be rectified. Does this mean that WWTP effluent must be stored, until analytical results are received back from the laboratory confirming that the effluent meets NPDES permit limits?

USACE RESPONSE: Prior to demonstrating that the discharge meets the permit requirements during the treatment plant startup period, water can simply be discharged to the center of the CDF, or to the pond. A separate storage basin is not needed. Any water discharged to the center of the CDF would infiltrate and be repumped by the groundwater gradient control system, or would simply be part of the pond.

(54) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Will the government reimburse the contractor for delay openings caused by BP/others?

USACE RESPONSE: See response to question #27.

(55) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Section 01 57 20.02 03. Is double wall pipe required for the decanted water taken from the CDF used to create the offloading slurry?

USACE RESPONSE: See response to question #26. Double walled piping is required for all piping outside the CDF, except for the treatment plant piping.

(56) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Contractor experience has shown that double walled pipe can be problematical if the transport line, located within the outer “containment pipe” becomes comprised and begins leaking. In the instance where the transport line begins leaking, the contractor is typically unaware of the leak due to the inability to visually inspect the pipe. Contractor experience has found that pipeline rated for high pressure usage, where pipe cross sectional area is increased, eliminates rupture issues as operating pressures are always below allowable pressures. May the contractor employ pipeline rated for high pressures in lieu of double walled pipe?

USACE RESPONSE: At this time, USACE is requiring double walled piping.

Specific value engineering alternatives could be considered after project award, in conjunction with the Contractor’s specific design.

(57) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Will any type of special certification be required for personnel fusing the double walled pipe?

USACE RESPONSE: No special certification will be required.

(58) CONTRACTOR’ S QUESTION: Is wipe testing required to be performed before the barges are allowed to leave site?

USACE RESPONSE: USACE is not requiring wipe testing, but cannot speak for any other state or federal agencies.

(59) CCONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Where can the outside of the barges be decontaminated to meet USCG requirements?

USACE RESPONSE: USACE is not responsible for the Contractor meeting USCG requirements, and we are not aware of the details of the requirements so we cannot address this issue. Water and sediment that is removed from barges during cleaning could be placed in the CDF for disposal, but not any other cleaning materials or products.

(60) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: How much taconite is expected within the dredge cut?

USACE RESPONSE: Unknown. Taconite is not identified during bathymetric surveys. It is anticipated that taconite exists in areas near the steel industry dock faces.

(62) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: What task items will be tied together? i.e. If the dredging task item is chosen is it guaranteed that mobilizations and demobilizations for that task will be issued also?

USACE RESPONSE: All contract line items are independent of one another and none are tied together by guarantee. However it is very likely that many line items will frequently be ordered together. In the case of two task orders being ordered in swift succession, it is possible that mobilization may be ordered at the beginning of one task order and demobilization ordered at the conclusion of the next.

(63) CONRACTOR’S QUESTION: If air monitoring indicates that air emissions at the CDF exceed the action levels will the contractor be reimbursed to lower the emissions below the action levels? If so, where in the pricing schedule should these costs be included?

USACE RESPONSE: See response to question #1.

(64) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: If emissions of naphthalene exceed standards and the water head is maintained in the CDF does the Corps expect treatment of the water surface to reduce emissions?

USACE RESPONSE: Experience by others at USX and other remediation type projects indicates that actions such as foam covers, addition of GAC to the CDF pond, or other actions can lower emissions. USACE has no specific experience at the IHC site with volatile emissions control.

(65) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: The QASP is to be used for the COR. Is the QASP provided final? Will the contractor be expected to prepare a Quality Assurance Project Plan for turbidity and air monitoring?

USACE RESPONSE: The QASP provided is final. The contractor will not be required to prepare a QASP for turbidity and air monitoring. Contractor should review all submittals required in Specification Section 01 33 00 Submittal Procedures related to turbidity and air monitoring.

(66) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Not knowing what specific tasks will be released in year one of the contract does the contractor have to put full mobilization and demobilization into each year of the contract so that if it is not required in year one that it would then be in the 2nd or successive years?

USACE RESPONSE: Yes, all costs should be included in each year of the contract, so work may be ordered in any year.

(67) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Will there be any payment retainage for each task order?

USACE RESPONSE: Retainages are discussed in FAR Clauses 52.232-5 and 52.232-9, which are incorporated into Section I of the RFP document. To view the full text of these Clauses, please visit: www.acquisition.gov/far.

(68) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Can single beam surveys be used for monthly progress surveys for dredging?

USACE RESPONSE: Yes.

(69) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: As the Solicitation emphasizes brevity, can we put all the delineated project related experience information in each subfactor on a chart that is 11” x 17” that would fold down to 8.5” x 11” pages?

USACE RESPONSE: See response to question 7. USACE does not specify format beyond what is given in the solicitation instructions. Offerors should ensure that all information is legible.

(70) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: In Section 44 10 00 Part 2.3.2, the real time naphthalene monitor shall have a detection limit lower than 15 µg/m3. The open-path monitor reports its data in part per billion and its detection limit is based upon the distance being monitored and not based upon a fixed volume of air (m3). Is this acceptable or will the data need to be manipulated to calculate a µg/m3 value?

USACE RESPONSE: Data may be reported in parts per billion as long as action levels are provided in the same units.

(72) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: In Section 44 10 00 Part 2.3.3 Air Monitor Location, it states that two open-path monitors may be sufficient to monitor the emissions around the perimeter of the CDF. Because two open-path monitors will only be able to monitor two sides of the CDF, their placement at the northeast and southwest pads as specified will not provide coverage of the entire perimeter. Are the monitors to be oriented so as to detect naphthalene that may be present on the south and east sides of the CDF so as to be protective of the residences located south and southeast of the CDF or do you anticipate routine repositioning of the monitors so that they are in the downwind position of the CDF? How frequently do you anticipate any re-positioning of the monitors?

USACE RESPONSE: The real time air monitors must cover the entire site, and it is up to the contractor to determine the appropriate number and type of monitors.

Because the air monitors will cover the entire site, USACE does not anticipate the real time air monitors being moved. The real time air monitoring needs to be able to take into account variable wind directions, without moving the monitors.

(73) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: According to Section 44 10 00 Part 3.2 Operation and Performance Requirements, the real-time particulate and naphthalene monitoring shall record data “continuously during dredging and CDF operations”. Are we to assume that “CDF operations” are occurring the entire calendar year?

USACE RESPONSE: Amendment #0003 to the solicitation changes this sentence in the specifications to say, “The real-time particulate and naphthalene air monitor shall be set to operate and record data continuously during the period specified in this Specification Section.” The monitoring period is specified in Paragraphs 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of Section 44 10 00.

(74) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: According to Section 44 11 00 Part 3.9 Real Time Air Monitoring Data Website Posting it states that “the real-time data should be posted as soon as the data is generated”. Is the intent to post this data as it is “generated” or is the intent to post the data concurrent with the monthly reporting of the data to the USACE? Part 3.13 Dock Area PID Data Website Posting requires daily posting of the Dock Area PID measurements. Does the USACE wanted data posted on a daily basis to the website that has not been reviewed?

USACE RESPONSE: The intent is that the data are reported in real time, as generated. The data need to be continuously reported on the website. The data QA should be appropriate for real time measurements and posting.

(75) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Please clarify: are two separate water treatment systems required? One system to treat the CDF decant and a separate system to treat groundwater? Or does the government intend for one larger treatment system to be utilized, providing 400 gpm capacity to treat the CDF decant and an additional 300 gpm capacity to treat groundwater (700 gpm total capacity)?

USACE RESPONSE: USACE anticipates that the Contractor will have EITHER a groundwater treatment plant on site (before the CDF pond is established) OR a treatment plant as needed to treat water from the CDF pond (which will be a combination of groundwater and dredge water). ). That is, it is not anticipated that a groundwater treatment plant and a wastewater treatment plant would be needed at the same time. Groundwater treatment would be a continuous operation. Water from the CDF pond will be treated as needed when the pond has excess water.

(76) CONRTACTOR’S QUESTION: Only one outfall is authorized in the NPDES permit. If two separate treatment plants are required, does the government intend for the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant and the groundwater treatment plant be combined and discharged through a single conduit?

USACE RESPONSE: There is only one outfall. The Contractor will only be treating one stream of water, EITHER from the groundwater gradient control system, OR from the CDF pond at any time. Note that the NPDES requirements for the groundwater change once dredging operations start, even if the water is still being treated directly from the ground.

(77) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Please confirm that the additional 3.5ft that is required to be removed below the TSCA areas is included in the pay volume.

USACE RESPONSE: The volume of TSCA material was calculated including the additional depth.

(78) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Can single wall pipe be used for material handling inside the confines of the CDF?

USACE RESPONSE: Yes, inside the CDF the piping can be single walled. See response to question #26.

(79) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Please describe the current electrical power available on the site?

USACE RESPONSE: See response to question #28.

(80) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Can water from the groundwater system be place into the CDF for overflow the first year? Subsequent years?

UACE RESPONSE: In subsequent years once dredging has sealed the bottom of the CDF, USACE expects that water will pond inside the CDF. Once a pond is established, groundwater will be discharged into the CDF pond, and will be held prior to treatment (with any dredge water and precipitation that enters the CDF.)

During the first year it is anticipated that the groundwater treatment plant will be able to adequately handle the inflow from the GCS. Only in an emergency can groundwater be placed in the CDF prior to a seal forming at the bottom to prevent untreated water from leaving the site. This should not be considered part of the normal operating procedure.

(81) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Have there been any discussions with the other stakeholders regarding the opening and closing of the oil boom at the BP facility and the transport of barges potentially contaminated by the oil in the canal? If so, what were the results?

USACE RESPONSE: USACE is currently in discussion with BP, IDEM and USEPA regarding the booms. It is understood by the various entities that USACE and its contractor must be able to get barges to the site.

(82) CONTRACTOR’S QUESTION: Will the Project Manager have the same on site availability when dredging is not being performed?

USACE RESPONSE: The Contractor’s Project Manager will have uninterrupted site access for the duration of the contract.