AMENDMENT NO 0002 W912P621R0003 LAKE GEORGE.pdf

W81G6603023956

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

REFERENCE: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. W912P621R0003, LAKE GEORGE CANAL MIDDLE SECTION RESTORATION, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA

A. The Proposal Due Date and Time is unchanged by this Amendment. Therefore, proposals are due prior to 2:00 p.m. (Central Time) on July 12, 2021. -For further details regarding offer and evaluation information, please refer to Solicitation Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-Jun-2021

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 W912P621R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Jun-2021

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 is extended, X 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

24-Jun-2021

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, CHICAGO

231 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 1500

CHICAGO IL 60604-1437

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912P621R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

B. This Amendment informs interested Offerors of the Chicago District’s Pre-proposal Meeting for this project and an in-person site visit.

(1) PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING: A VIRTUAL Pre-Proposal Meeting will be held on Monday, June 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (CDT).

Join from the following meeting link:

https://usace1.webex.com/usace1/j.php?MTID=m06b3015a25d5f346cff0857b7d70af83

Meeting number (access code): 199 025 8534

Meeting password: 5GixPDuv$23

Join by Phone/mobile device:

1-844-800-2712

Access Code: 1990258534 Conf ID: press # (pound sign)

(2) SITE WALK: An in-person site visit will be conducted by the Chicago District on Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (CDT). Contractors shall wear boots, hard hats, and masks. Contractors should be prepared to watch a safety vudeo when arriving on site.

The address for the site visit is as follows:

2815 Indianapolis Blvd.

Whiting, Indiana

C. AMENDED Page 39 of 84 of the Solicitation: *This Amendment corrects the 5th paragraph on page 39 of the Solicitation document, which now reads as follows: The Government will evaluate the qualifications of the key personnel. The minimum qualifications for the Project Manager is below. Personnel exceeding the minimum qualifications may be considered a strength and may result in a higher adjectival rating:

Project Manager:

The Project Manager shall have at least 5 years of experience in environmental remediation, including sediment capping projects.

D. CONTRACTOR’S INQUIRIES: By this Amendment, the Chicago District, USACE responds to Contractor’s inquiries.

INQUIRY 1: An Attachment A is mentioned on pg. 37 of the solicitation under 2.1.2 Past Performance Factor 2 (Factor 2). It is missing from the original solicitation. Please provide Attachment A, Past Performance Questionnaire.

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 1: Please refer to Amendment No. 0001, whereby enclosing Attachment A, which was inadvertently omitted from the original solicitaiton.

INQUIRY 2: Is there a page limit for Factor 1, Technical Approach and Management?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 2: The Solicitation doesn’t require a page limit; however, per the GENERAL PROPOSAL INFORMATION, “Offerors should limit submissions to the data essential for evaluation so that a minimum of time and funds are spent in preparing the information.” (reference: page 35, Part II, paragraph 2.0)

INQUIRY 3: Is there a page limit for Factor 2, Past Performance?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 3: Please refer to the USACE’s response provided to Inquiry #2.

INQUIRY 4: Is there a page limit for Factor 3, Personnel Qualifications and Experience?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 4: Please refer to the USACE’s response provided to Inquiry #2.

INQUIRY 5: In the RFP, on pg. 39, the Project Manager’s resume requirements are provided in this solicitation.

Please provide resume requirements for Site Supervisors; Industrial Hygienist; Quality Control Personnel; and any other personnel deemed critical to performance of the work as identified on the organization chart.

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 5: Please revisit the respective page of the solicitation. The types of information for those individuals are delineated, wherein stating in pertinent part:

The resumes should clearly display proposed job title, education, special qualifications, and experience record. Experience record should include title, specific duties, and level of responsibility of assignments for at least the last 5 years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. The offerors must include resumes of the following key personnel:

Project Manager • Site Supervisors • Industrial Hygienist • Quality Control Personnel • Any other personnel deemed critical to performance of the work as identified on the organization chart.

The resumes shall include the personnel education, licenses, certifications, and any relevant training.

The resumes shall describe the experience that qualifies the relevant personnel for the Solicitation work and specifically identify experience of the individuals on the projects listed in Factor 1.

*This Amendment corrects the 5th paragraph on page 39 of the Solicitation document, which now reads as follows: The Government will evaluate the qualifications of the key personnel. The minimum qualifications for the Project Manager is below. Personnel exceeding the minimum qualifications may be considered a strength and may result in a higher adjectival rating:

Project Manager:

The Project Manager shall have at least 5 years of experience in environmental remediation, including sediment capping projects.

INQUIRY 6: On page 27 of the RFP in Section 1: Factor 1: Technical Approach and Management in 1E.

Verification Plan, please confirm that Offerors can provide a previously completed/ utilized (from a different project) quality control / quality assurance plan for the overall project as an addendum to the Offeror’s proposal and will address specific quality control / quality assurance in regard to sediment cap verification in narrative form under 1E. Verification Plan.

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 6: The offeror shall provide a submittal that will satisfy all requirements set forth as follows; therefore, the offeror must completely/fully address the specifics delineated below to receive an acceptable rating (at a minimum). How the offeror presents the information is up to the offeror as long as it complies with the requirements of this Solicitation.

1E. Verification Plan. Provide a plan for verifying installation of the engineered sediment cap to meet the requirements of the specifications. Include equipment and methods necessary to verify that each cap layer will be accurately installed with the required thickness, extent, and composition. Include descriptions of in-progress verification of individual capping layers and final verification of the constructed cap. Include a draft quality control / quality assurance plan and describe critical quality metrics and team members. Proposals which provide highly accurate and effective methods for verifying each capping layer’s extent, thickness, and composition may receive higher rating.

Minimum verification requirements are described within the plans and specifications, however the offeror may propose innovative or advanced approaches which may receive higher rating.

INQUIRY 7: What font type is appropriate for this RFP?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 7: There isn’t a requirement stipulated for a font size. The proposal should be readable.

INQUIRY 8: Please confirm that water from Lake George can be utilized as slurry water similar to other project completed on the Grand Calumet.

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 8: USACE has no objections to utilization of canal water as slurry water. The Contractor is ultimately responsible that the sediment cap meets all requirements of the specifications.

INQUIRY 9:

35 20 23.50 - 3.2.4 Cap Protection states that the release of spuds into the sediment cap layers is not allowed.

Similar to other project completed within the AOC can it be accepted that spuds can be utilized as long as they do not penetrate through the final cap layer. If no, can modified spuds with diffusion plates be utilized to anchor the capping system.

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 9: As noted in the highlighted specification section, the release of spuds into any of the engineered sediment cap layers is not allowed. Modified diffusion plates may be acceptable if they prevent penetration of the sediment cap.

INQUIRY 10:

35 20 23.50 - 3.2.2 J. states that both sediment cores and bathymetric surveys will be evaluated by the COR to confirm cap construction. Can you please provide further detail on the evaluation criteria to determine acceptance.

Does the core thickness or survey carry more weight? What percent of the placement area needs to meet or exceed minimum thickness? What tolerance above the minimum is acceptable?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 10: Both sediment cores and survey will be evaluated to assess adequacy of cap placement. Sediment cores will be used to provide ground-truth evidence of cap thickness in discrete locations, and bathymetric surveys will be utilized to assess canal-wide conditions and representativeness of the collected cores. USACE is interested in working with contractors to ensure the minimum cap requirements presented within the specifications are met; as noted within the specifications, contractors may propose methods for cap thickness verification (see also Paragraph 3.2.3.F of subject specification section).

The entire placement area must meet or exceed the minimum thickness. Tolerance greater than minimum is not specified.

INQUIRY 11:

35 20 23.50 - 3.2.2 C. states if placing the amended layer through the water column by settling, place the amended portions of the cap in a minimum of two lifts. Please clarify the intent of this specification. In later specifications it discusses the cap needing to be broadcasted. If broadcasted is the two lifts required. Each additional lift increases costs and want to confirm intent of the spec.

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 11: The intent of this requirement is to ensure that organophilic amended portion of the cap is installed in thin lifts to promote horizontal and vertical distribution of amendment.

There is concern that placement of a single lift will exacerbate the potential for amendment stratification or mounding.

INQUIRY 12:

35 20 23.50 - 3.2.2 C. states that placement of the engineered cap cannot occur if an oil sheen or free product is present. Does the engineered cap include the stabilization layer? The specifications call out for mixing of material during placement of the stabilization layer which will result in release of sheen. If a shutdown is required at each point during the stabilization layer there will be significant costs. Can the contractor assume this only pertains to the placement of the amended sand layer?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 12: The contractor must not place environmental cap – to include the amended layer and isolation layer – through floating oil. The stabilization layer is not considered as part of the environmental cap and free product release is anticipated with placement of the stabilization layer.

INQUIRY 13: Please provide further definition on what is considered a sheen. Below is a picture of the canal with no work being performed. Is this considered a sheen?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 13: The contractor is required to control floating oil as part of the contract, to include sheens and full-color floating oil, regardless of origin. See specification section 01 57 20.02 03, 35 21 00, and 35 21 10.

INQUIRY 14: Instructions to bidders section 2.1.4 Small Business Participation Plan - call for a goal of 34.5% of the total contract work. This project as it is laid out in the specifications, is very technical and requires specialized contractors to perform. Due to the limited number of contractors that can meet the experience level required by the scope of work, would the USACE reduce the Small Business Participation goal? To meet the 34.5% goal, qualified bidders will need to use less qualified contractors to perform specialized work to meet the current goals. Our full intent is to procure small businesses that are both qualified and cost-competitive, but the current goal seems unattainable.

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 14: Per paragraph 2.1.4 Small Business Participation Plan, “Offerors unable to meet the minimum overall small business goal of 34.5% shall provide an explanation of why this target cannot be met with their proposal.” Therefore, in the the offeror’s proposal, it shall provide sufficient details as to why it is unable to meet the goal of 34.5%.

INQUIRY 15: It is anticipated that both the bedding stone and armor layer will be required to be placed mechanically. The design drawings call out two staging areas which neither have water access to load barges. Can the contractor use areas outside the staging areas to stockpile materials? Does the USACE have any documents stating the design rating for the wakefield wall? Are any offsets required while loading material?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 15: As noted in Paragraph 1.6 of Section 01 10 00 of the contract specifications, the contractor may obtain additional storage areas at their own expense. Given the age of the structure there is no available information on the wakefield wall. Available soil borings are provided in the contract specifications.

INQUIRY 16: Per page 39 of the solicitation and project specification (Solicitation+and+Project+Specifications+W912P621R0003+Lake+George+Canal+Middle+Section+Restoration.pd f), “The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for– Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.” Because that document did not include a PPQ and considering the time constraints involved, can the contractor use another source to obtain a PPQ form to submit to clients?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 16: Please revisit Page 37 of 84 of the Solicitation document, specifically at paragraph 2.1.2 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR 2: (FACTOR 2). The completion of the PPQ is a solicitation requirement. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal, the entire PPQ (with the unfilled evaluation section), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may choose to, but is not obligated to, contact the client during review of the proposal, so the Offeror should ensure that phone numbers and email addresses are current. Offerors shall not incorporate PPQs into their proposal by referencing previously submitted PPQs for other RFP’s.

INQUIRY 17: Instructions to bidders section 2.1.2 Past Performance Factor: Due to the complexity and specific nature of the cap can projects completed within the past 10 years be accepted vs. the current 7 year requirement.

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 17: The offeror must comply with the criteria set forth by the Solicitation.

INQUIRY 18: Is there a scheduled site walk/pre-bid meeting?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 18: Yes, please see the above paragraph B for the specifics.

INQUIRY 19: Drawing 005-482693-G05 shows are area for secondary staging area. Can you provide the owners intent for this area? If contractor elects to use this space would site improvements need to me made? Who is the current owner of the property?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 19: The BP Whiting Refinery is the current owner of this property. The area is used by BP Whiting Refinery for material storage. The intent of the secondary storage area is to provide additional storage space, as needed. The contractor is required to restore the area after use, as necessary.

INQUIRY 20: Are you still accepting bids at this time?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 20: Thank you kindly for your interest; however, this is not an Invitation for Bids. For this project, the Chicago District is still accepting technical and price proposal packages until the Solicitation closing date of July 12, 2021. Packages must be submitted prior to 2:00 p.m. CDT on this date.

INQUIRY 21: Is the total woody plant restoration area 6.65 acres?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 21: Minimum restoration areas are shown on the project drawings. The hatching labeled “Ecosystem Restoration” on sheet G-002 is associated with the “Upland” planting regime provided in Attachment 1 of Specification Section 32 93 01. The last “Upland” table of the Attachment 1 is titled “Tree and Shrub Species List”. If additional information is needed, please clarify the term “Woody Species”.

INQUIRY 22: Is the installation for woody plant material slated for fall 2022?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 22: The schedule for ecosystem restoration plantings will be driven by the Contractor’s overall construction schedule. It is feasible that planting could begin in Fall 2022.

INQUIRY 23: Please consider a two week extension for proposals to be due on July 26, 2021, due to the fact that two Federal Government holidays fall during the procurement period and because there is no Attachment A for the Past Performance Questionnaire’s provided by USACE.

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 23: The interested offeror shall comply with the closing date requirements for this Solicitation. No time extension is being provided.

INQUIRY 24: Is there a page limit for the Technical Approach and Management plan?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 24: The solicitation does not require a page limit for the technical approach and management plan. For additional information, please refer to the USACE’s response provided at Inquiry #12.

INQUIRY 25: The RFP lists minimum qualifications for the Contractor’s Project Manager. Are there minimum qualifications for any of the additional key personnel listed in the RFP?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 25: The contract specifications contain minimum qualifications for certain personnel. For example, see Paragraph 1.16 of Specification Section 01 10 00, Paragraph 3.4.2 of Specification Section 01 45 00.00 10, or other requirements listed in the specifications as necessary.

INQUIRY 26: The RFP states the Offeror may submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of seven (7) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). Can Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations be submitted in lieu of PPQs?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 26: Please refer to the USACE’s response provided at Inquiry #16.

INQUIRY 27: Will USACE consider a two week bid extension to July 26, 2021?

USACE RESPONSE INQUIRY 27: The interested offeror shall comply with the closing date set forth by the Solicitation. No extension will be provided.

D. POINT OF CONTACT: The Point of Contact for this Amendment is Ericka Hillard at ericka.d.hilard@usace.army.mil.

END OF AMENDMENT NO. 0002