Amendment_0005_FINAL(6).pdf

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

This amendment is being issued to respond to requests for information (RFIs) from the Callahan project site w alk, and to extend the proposal due date to 8 August 2017. Another amendment w ill be issued to respond to additional questions emailed to USACE after the site w alk. The seed task order PWS is revised and replaced in its entirety by this amendment as attached.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Jul-2017

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 W912WJ-17-R-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Jun-2017

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

13-Jul-2017

CODE

U S ARMY ENGR DISTRICT, NEW ENGLAND

696 VIRGINIA RD

CONCORD MA 01742-2751

W912WJ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912WJ-17-R-0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

1. Question: Is there any recent topographic LIDAR data or CAD?

Response: There is LIDAR data that was collected in March 2016 by Army Geospatial

Center. The LIDAR data is an attachment to this amendment.

2. Question: Is the delivery schedule for regulatory approval include all approving agency reviews?

Response: The schedule provided in Section 7.8 includes all regulatory reviews. However, after additional consideration, the review schedule is revised for the following three submittals - Work Plan (Task 2.2), Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring Plan (Task 2.5), and Quarry Design and Restoration Plan (Task 2.6). These three documents are more complex, and more likely to receive significant comment. For these three documents, the submittal date for the draft plans are revised in the Seed Task Order PWS to be 90 days from Notice to Proceed. There will be a technical planning meeting for all three plans (in one meeting) approximately 45 days prior to the submittal date. The Government (including all agencies) will provide comments on these three draft plans within twenty (20) business days after submittal. The schedule provided in Section 7.8 remains applicable for the response to comments, final draft, and final documents for these three plans.

3. Question: Is dredging part of the project?

Response: Sediment removal will be part of the project, however, it is not part of the work in the Performance Work Statement for the Seed Task Order.

4. Question: Is the design for sediment underway?

Response: The design for the sediment removal is currently in process by Maine Department of Transportation.

5. Question: Can current bioreactor data be obtained/released? Are current water standards being met by the sampling?

Response: The most recent Monthly Monitoring Report is provided as an attachment to this amendment. The water treated by the bio-reactor system currently meets applicable water quality standards.

6. Question: What type of rock is in the quarry?

Response: Per the Basis of Design Report, the quarry includes an area of abundant andesite that should be amenable for removal from the quarry. The area to the north of the quarry is dominated by rhyolite, which would be more difficult to remove. Page 10-1 of the Basis of Design Report (as referenced on page 1 the PWS) discusses the bedrock mapping. Drawing C-117 of the Basis of Design Report shows the conceptual location of quarry area (andesitic/dioritic rock).

In addition, Figure 3.1.2 of the Remedial Investigation Report located at www.epa.gov/superfund/callahan, shows the bedrock outcrop mapping at the site.

7. Question: Is a permit needed for the quarry?

Response: Remedial response actions at Federal Superfund Sites do not require permits.

However, Title 38: Waters and Navigation, Chapter 3, Subchapter 1, Article 8-A of the Maine Revised Statutes has been approved as an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement for the remedial response actions at the site. As such, quarry design, operations, and restoration must be in substantive compliance with this law.

8. Question: Is the sediment pond located near the former Mine Operations Area cleaned out?

Response: The sediment pond located near the former Mine Operations Area is currently maintained by the State of Maine. The maintenance requirement is to inspect the sediment pond, and clean out debris from the culvert to ensure flow is unobstructed. The PWS will be revised to specify that the sediment pond must be maintained under this contract action.

9. Question: Is it permissible to use scrap rock adjacent to quarry for drainage rock and use on tailings impoundment?

10. Response: Scrap rock is not permitted to be used on the face of the dam to achieve the 2:1 slope. The contractor will need to evaluate the suitability of the scrap rock for use on the Tailing Impoundment. The offerors shall assume that 70,000 cubic yards of clean rock shall be required to be quarried, processed, and sorted.

11. Question: Will additional site visits be permitted by contractors to further evaluate the quarry?

Response: Additional organized site visits will not be conducted.

12. Question: Is it the Government’s goal and intent to complete remediation of OU3, and in doing so effectively bring this Superfund site to closure?

Response: The Government’s objectives are laid out in the Performance Work Statement for the IDIQ, which begins on page 3 of the solicitation.

13. Reference: Section L, Allotted page count for Technical Information (50 pages) and Key Personnel Resumes (25 pages).

Question: Existing page limits for the proposal will restrict offerors’ ability to adequately describe Technical Information within the 50 page limit. Conversely, the 25 page limit for Key Personnel Resumes appears high. Recognizing the need for brevity related directly to the subjects addressed in Sections L and M, Offeror respectfully requests a total of 75 pages for Technical Information, and 15 pages for Key Personnel Resumes.

Response: Page limit for Factor 1, Factor 3, and Factor 4 (combined) have been increased to 65 pages. Factor 2 remains at 25 pages. Factor 5 and Factor 6 do not have page limits. Please refer to the amended page limit table in Amendment 0004.

14. Reference: Section L, Page limits and Factors

Question: Please consider including a 2-page Executive Summary that is separate from the page count that allows offerors to describe key elements of its proposal and approach. Doing so will allow evaluators to gain an initial understanding of the proposal contents to better understand how the overall proposal factors work together.

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/callahan http://www.epa.gov/superfund/callahan

Response: There is no requirement to submit an Executive Summary. If an Executive Summary is included, it will be counted toward the page limit.

15. Reference: Section L, Page limits and Factors

Question: Please exclude the Table of Contents from the page limitation, as they add little or zero technical or management value, yet can consume several pages from the required evaluated content.

Response: The Table of Contents will be counted toward the page limit.

16. Reference: Section L, Factor 6, Section 10, Seed Task Order Costs, it states “ODCs, travel, and disposal costs are not binding. The offeror is encouraged to provide their best offer for those items.”

Question: If ODCs, travel and disposal costs are not binding, are the overall FFP CLIN prices binding? Please consider making the FFP CLIN prices binding.

Response: Please refer to Section L, Factor 6, Section 10 as revised by this Amendment.

17. Reference: Section L, Factor 3. Note that much of the language related to Section L, Factor 3 specifically pertains to the Seed Task Order approach. Other sentences do not specifically reference the Seed Task Order approach, such as the sentence that reads “The proposal shall demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully complete all work required and achieve the final cleanup objectives for the project.”

Question: Please clarify whether offerors’ are required to address in Factor 3 all ROD/ESD scopes found in Section C.

Response: Section L, Factor 3 pertains solely to the offeror’s Seed Task Order Technical Approach.

18. Reference: Attachments, AutoCAD & LiDAR

Question: Offeror respectfully requests any available existing site plans, drawings, or topographic maps in AutoCAD Format. Please additionally provide any LiDAR survey maps or drawings.

Response: The LIDAR survey data from March 2016 is provided with this Amendment.

19. Reference: Attachments, property limits

Question: Offeror respectfully requests any available maps, drawings, or plans that accurately depict the limits of the Smith Cove Preservation Trust property. Please additionally indicate the limits of work and access agreements for the project and adjacent properties.

Response: This Amendment provides a survey plan showing the boundaries of the Smith Cove Preservation Trust. US EPA has secured access to the entire Smith Cove Preservation Trust pursuant to a Consent Decree and Restrictive Covenant. The Seed Task Order tasks should be completed within the Smith Cove Preservation property.

20. Reference: Attachment, access to the mine

Question: Please confirm the mine site is accessible from both sides of Old Mine Road.

Response: All truck traffic must access the site by Old Mine Road from the south as truck traffic is not allowed to drive through Holbrook Island Sanctuary State Park. Vehicles such as cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs are allowed to travel to the site through Holbrook Island Sanctuary State Park (access Old Mine Road from the North).

21. Reference: Seed Task Order, Section 1 (Contract Procurement Objectives and Overview): The seed task order references the OU3 Final Remedial Design, Basis of Design Report (AMEC 2015). The Basis of Design Report (AMEC 2015) includes technical specifications (Appendix N) and drawings (Appendix M). The drawings state “Not for Construction” and neither the technical specifications nor the drawings are sealed and signed by a licensed professional engineer (PE). The Seed Task Order also provides the Design Refinement Feasibility Study Memorandum (USACE 2017) as an attachment. That memorandum provides a different approach than the Basis of Design Report (AMEC 2015) for reducing pore water pressures/dewatering tailings, regrading the tailings impoundment, consolidating mine waste, and construction of a final cover.

Question: Please clarify whether the Design Refinement Feasibility Study Memorandum (USACE 2017) overrides the BOD Report (AMEC 2015) in the areas where they conflict.

Response: The Design Refinement Feasibility Memorandum is not intended to override the BOD Report. It simply demonstrates that the slope stabilization performance standards can be achieved even if the Tailing Impoundment is not able to be fully dewatered. As a Performance Based Contract, the offeror is required to stabilize the Tailing Impoundment such that the performance objectives specified in Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement (minimum factor of safety of 1.3 during construction, and 1.5 post construction) are met. Per Task 2.2 of the PWS (page 7), the offeror will provide a Work Plan which documents the proposed approach for stabilizing the Tailing Impoundment including drawings and specifications, and demonstrates that the proposed approach achieves the specified performance standards.

22. Reference: Seed Task Order, Section 1 (Contract Procurement Objectives and Overview). The seed task order references the OU3 Final Remedial Design, Basis of Design Report (AMEC 2015). The Basis of Design Report (AMEC 2015) includes technical specifications (Appendix N) and drawings (Appendix M). The drawings state “Not for Construction” and neither the technical specifications nor the drawings are sealed and signed by a licensed professional engineer (PE). Further, Attachment G does not explicitly state a requirement for technical specifications or drawings to be provided by offerors.

Questions:

(A) Will a final design, including technical specifications and drawings sealed by a PE, be developed for the seed task order?

(B) If so, please clarify the entity (AMEC, USACE, Offeror) responsible for the development of final design specifications and drawings and who will be the engineer of record for the project.

(C) If it is the Offeror’s responsibility to develop final design specifications and drawings, please clarify which performance objective/task that work is to be completed under.

(D) If it is required by the offeror, what does the review process entail and what is the turnaround time? Please include a list of all review parties (e.g. USACE, EPA, MEDEP, Town of Brooksville, and Smith Cove Preservation Trust)

(E) If it is NOT the Offeror’s responsibility to develop final design specifications and drawings, please state the entity/individual that is the Designer of Record for this project.

(F) If another entity will be responsible for developing final design specifications and drawings sealed by a PE, please clarify when those bid documents will be provided.

(G) If preconstruction submittals require engineering services or seal/signature of a PE, please specify the specifications and drawings that USACE will require.

Response: The offeror will be responsible for providing technical specifications and drawings for the proposed technical approach to achieve the specified Performance Standards. The technical specifications and drawings shall be provided together with the Work Plan (Task 2.2 of the PWS).

The technical specifications and drawings will require review by USACE, EPA, Maine DOT, and Maine DEP. Technical specifications and drawings that deviate from the existing Basis of Design will require PE seal/signature. The Seed Task Order PWS as revised by this amendment provides additional detail on the technical specifications and drawing requirements.

23. Reference: Seed Task Order, Section 7.12 (Additional Requirements – Engineering

Support): This section states that “The Contractor may be required to provide a wide variety of engineering services to support remediation/response actions. The extent of the engineering services will be described in detail in each individual task order and may include, but are not limited to, structural, mechanical, electrical, architectural, geotechnical, geological, civil, environmental, mining, cost engineering, constructability reviews, and engineering support.”

Review of the seed project Task 2.0 (Prepare Plans) work descriptions indicates that the Offeror will develop several pre-construction submittals including a work plan (Task 2.2), sampling and analysis plan (Task 2.4), geotechnical instrumentation/monitoring plan (Task 2.5), and quarry design and restoration plan (Task 2.6). The task order descriptions do not indicate that a there are any engineering services to be provided by a PE and do not include detailed descriptions of engineering services. Specifications Section 01 11 00, Paragraph 1.03.C states that the “Contractor shall submit a Construction Work Plan for review and acceptance by the OWNER and ENGINEER” which appears to further confirm that engineering services are not required for pre-construction submittals.

Question:

(H) Please clarify whether the pre-construction submittals require engineering services or seal/signature of a PE.

(I) If preconstruction submittals require engineering services or seal/signature of a PE, please clarify whether the pre-construction submittals are included in the 18 month period of performance for the Seed Task Order as there can be a lengthy review process associated.

Response: See Response to Question 22. The pre-construction submittals shall be included with the Work Plan (Task 2.2), and included within the 18 month period of performance.

24. Reference: Seed Task Order, Section 6.2.2 (Task 2.2-Work Plan) – This section states that the contractor is responsible for “Evaluation of geotechnical stability before, during, and after construction as a result of proposed remediation consistent with EPA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis.”

(A) Please provide a reference for the EPA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and required information and assessments to be provided in the FMEA. EPA has previously required a failure mode and effects analysis as part of the mine reclamation consultation process with EPA Headquarters as described in the April 2017 EPA Memorandum titled “Developing Consultation Packages for CERCLA Activities at Abandoned Hardrock Mining and Mineral Processing Sites in Preparation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Construction Season (EPA 2017).

Response: There is no standard reference for the FMEA. It is a document that fully describes the range of failure modes that could result from the activities to be performed and the effects (consequences) of a failure. The FMEA would be specific to the activities to be performed and would include the identification of mitigation measures and best practices to minimize or prevent a release that could occur as a result of the implementation of the seed task order. The offeror is required to provide technical support to EPA to prepare a FMEA for any phase of activity where there is the potential for the release of fluids (including tailing material) that cannot be contained with existing site controls.

(B) Has a consultation process with EPA Headquarters been completed for the site tailings impoundment?

Response: There has not been a consultation process in regards to the closure of the tailing impoundment.

(C) If so, please provide consultation package information for review. If not, will a consultation process with EPA Headquarters be required as part of this task order given the instability of existing impoundment dam and the potential for fluidized tailings release into ecological receptors during construction?

Response: Yes, a consultation process with EPA Headquarters will be required as part of this Task Order (PWS Task 2.5).

25. Reference: Seed Task Order Attachment, Design Refinement Feasibility Evaluation Memorandum, Horizontal Drain Performance (Page 10) – This portion of the memorandum states that “The first horizontal drain was installed in August 2015. Although still being evaluated, the horizontal drain does not appear to be having a significant effect on reducing water levels within the Tailings Impoundment.”

(A) Please clarify when the horizontal drain evaluation will be completed and when corresponding information describing the design and construction of the drain will be made available for review.

(B) The Basis of Design includes the installation of additional horizontal drains as part of the work to be performed. Please confirm that this work (additional horizontal drains) is not included in the seed task order.

(C) Please provide water level data collected from groundwater monitoring for the Tailings Impoundment.

Response: The horizontal drain evaluation is an on-going study, but there has not been any significant change in the performance of the horizontal drain since it was installed. The installation of additional horizontal drains is not included in the Seed Task Order. The water level data is included in the Monthly Monitoring Reports and attached to this Amendment.

26. Reference: Attachment G, Seed Task Order PWS, Section 6.4, Task 4, Establish On-Site

Quarry.

Question: It is unclear what the specific scope of Task 4, Establish On-Site Quarry entails beyond physically establishing the on-site quarry. Please provide additional details related to the scope of this FFP Task.

(A) Does this item include processing the full 70,000 CY of gravel and crushed stone?

(B) Does the 70,000 CY of gravel and crushed stone include material that may be required from other on site resources such the tailings impoundment berm material?

(C) Does this FFP item include quarry closure and restoration?

Response: Task 4 includes the actual processing of the 70,000 CY of gravel and crushed stone.

The 70,000 cubic yards does not include any material from other on-site resources. Task 4 includes quarry closure and restoration. Assume 70,000 cubic yards of rock will need to be extracted from the quarry. The PWS is revised to clarify the quarry task (Task 4).

27. Reference: Attachment G, Seed Task Order PWS.

Question: As part of flattening the tailings impoundment embankment, there may be disturbance in the area between the toe of the embankment and Goose Pond. What wetland mitigation is needed, if any, and is it part of the seed task order? If wetland mitigation is part of the seed task order, then where is mitigation intended to be performed?

Response: Wetland mitigation is not included in the Seed Task Order.

28. Question: While I have been assuming that you will require 330 format resumes within our submittal, I have not come across any specific reference to resume format. Can you please clarify?

Response: No resume format is specified in the solicitation.

29. Reference: Related to Factor 1 – Team Experience, Submittal Requirements (pages 88 – 89 of 118 of the Solicitation):

Question: In consideration of a Joint Venture with no previous work history (a newly formed Joint Venture), does each joint venture partner need to demonstrate recent and relevant project experience, or is it acceptable to have only one of the JV partners submit recent and relevant experience, assuming that the other member of the joint venture is not performing any of the key work functions identified as: engineering, earthworks construction, slope stability and geotechnical testing and analysis.

Response: The Solicitation requirement in “Factor 1 – Team Experience” for such projects to be submitted for each Joint Venture partner remains unchanged. Refer to page 88-89 of the Solicitation.

30. Question: Please consider extending the deadline for completed project experience from eight

(8) years to twenty (20) years.

Response: The Solicitation requirement in “Factor 1 – Team Experience” for projects provided to be completed within the past eight (8) years remains unchanged. Refer to page 98 of the Solicitation.

31. Question: FAR 52.228-1 is incorporated by reference in the RFP. This clause requires a bid guarantee. Is a bid bond required with the proposal and if so, where in the proposal should it be submitted?

Response: Bid bond should be submitted in Volume II under Factor 6 in accordance with Amendment 0003 -bid bond information.

32. Question: The first column on equipment tab of Attachment I-1 and I-2 is labeled “ID (From Form 1C)”. Where in the RFP is Form 1C? Could you provide?

Response: Form included a typo - should state “From Form I-3”. See updated Solicitation Attachment I-1 and I-2 as part of this Amendment.

33. Question: If a specific piece of equipment is proposed by both the Prime and a Team Sub and also on the Seed Task Order, should the ID be the same on the equipment tabs of I-1 & I-2 and also on I-3 or are the equipment items just numbered consecutively on each form?

Response: A specific piece of equipment should be listed in Attachment I-3 for whoever owns or is leasing/renting that specific piece of equipment (be it the prime or sub). Each piece of equipment should show up on the equipment tab of that same contractor (either the prime or the sub) as a binding rate, not on both a prime AND subcontractor. It is the Government’s expectation that each contractor (prime and all subs) should have their own Attachment I-3.

34. Question: Is it correct that I-3 only contains a combined (prime & sub) list the equipment proposed on the seed task order while I-1 (Prime) & I-2 (team sub) list all equipment proposed for the contract?

Response: All equipment proposed in the seed task order should be included in Attachment I-3 regardless of who owns or is renting/leasing the equipment (be it the prime or sub). Each contractor, prime and each sub, should submit their own Attachment I-3 for all equipment they, specifically, are proposing. Each piece of equipment that shows up in either I-1 or I-2 should be referencing in the ID from form I-3 and the hourly rate should crosswalk from I-3 to wherever it is in included in I-1 or I-2.

All revisions are shown in red.

SOLICITATION AMENDMENTS

The following paragraph is added to the end of Section L, Factor 6, Section 10, beginning on page 94 of the Solicitation:

The offeror shall be bound to seed task order prices proposed on Attachment I-4 for all tasks noted as FFP (firm fixed price). Award of FFP line item(s) will be for the proposed amount for these seed task order, FFP tasks. Tasks noted as CPFF on Attachment I-4 shall be awarded as CPFF line item(s), with the proposed amount establishing the Not to Exceed estimated cost.

Offerors should distinguish between the proposed prices and costs for the Seed Task Order and the binding rates required for the IDIQ contract. Binding rates for the IDIQ are required as described in this solicitation, regardless of whether they relate to a task in the Seed Task Order that is CPFF or FFP.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 24-Jul-2017 12:00 PM to 08-Aug-2017 12:00 PM.

(End of Summary of Changes)