Amendment_0007_FINAL(1).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) and extend the proposal due date to Wednesday, September 20, 2017. The April 5-6 2017 Performance Assessment Summary Report is added to the list of attachments because the last report issued contained an error. Also to issue Revised Attachments I-1 through I-4, revised Attachment H, Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan, and corrected April 5-6, Performance Assessment Summary Report.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Aug-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

23-Aug-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: Based on the sheer volume of unknown information and outstanding questions, offeror respectfully requests a 2-week extension from the current proposal due date of July 24, 2017 to August 7, 2017.

Response: The proposal due date is extended to Wednesday, 20 September 2017.

2) Question: Will an extension be given for the proposal deadline? We would request that an extension be granted.

Response: See response to Question #1.

3) Question: We respectfully ask that the due date for proposals be pushed to August 1.

Response: See response to Question #1.

4) Question: Page 87: Please clarify which Factors, presented on pages 88 through 92, comprise the 50 pages of Technical Information described within Table 4.

Response: Please refer to the revised page limit in accordance with the revised Table 4 in Amendment 0004.

5) Question: Page 87: Please apply the page allocations within Table 4 to their respective

Factors presented on pages 88 through 92.

Response: See response to Question #4.

6) Question: RFP Section L, page 87 of 118. The note below Table 4 indicates that

“Agreements or letters of commitment submitted for Factor 4 will not be counted toward the page limit.” However, page 90 of 118 appears to indicate that agreements and letters of commitment are to be submitted in Factor 1. Please clarify where agreements and letters of commitment are to be provided and if they count toward any page count.

Response: Submit agreements and letters of commitment in Factor 1. The agreements and letters of commitment do not count toward the page limit.

7) Question: RFP Section L, page 89 of 118. The first full paragraph states that “Offerors must submit a signed copy of their joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved mentor-protégé agreement, or letter of commitment for each above member of the Offeror’s team to receive credit for their experience and/or past performance.” Please clarify if the Agreements and Commitment letters are only required for the team member’s whose experience/past performance is being included in the proposal.

Response: Under Factor 1, Agreements or Commitment Letters are required to be submitted for all proposed Team Members (including, but not limited to, the Offeror and members performing the key work functions - engineering/design, earthworks construction, slope stability, and geotechnical testing and analysis). Past Performance information for all Team Members is to be submitted under Factor 5.

8) Question: RFP Section L, page 87 of 118. The note below Table 4 indicates that cover letters and Table of Contents are to be included within the page calculation. Our experience on other proposals is that these items are generally excluded from any page limit calculations. We respectfully request that the Government consider that these items may be excluded from the page limit, as the page limit is extremely restrictive for Volume I Technical Information.

Response: The page limit for Factors 1, 3, and 4 was increased from 50 to 65 in Amendment 4. Cover letter pages and Table of Contents are included in the page count.

9) Question: Page 87: The note includes the cover letter and Table of Contents in the page limit. We respectfully request that you omit these from the page count.

Response: See Response to Question #8.

10) Question: RFP Section L, page 87 of 118. Please clarify as to whether the 25-page limit is for all of Factor 2 (any Factor 2 introductory information and resumes), or just for the resumes themselves.

Response: The 25 page limit includes all information submitted in response to Factor 2.

11) Question: Page 87: Table 4 allots 25 pages for the Key Personnel Resumes. Does

CENAE expect the entire 25 pages to be used solely for the five Key Personnel Resumes required on page 89?

Response: See response to Question #10.

12) Question: RFP Section L, Page 89 of 118. Under Key personnel, we question the requirements for the Mining Engineer, particularly necessity of a Master’s Degree. In addition, there is no requirement for the Mining Engineer to have a Professional Engineer license, whereas both the Geotechnical Engineer and the Civil Engineer require one. Our experience with other USACE RFPs is that 3-5 years of experience can be substituted for a Master’s Degree, and we believe that additional years of experience, along with a Professional Engineer license for the Mining Engineer, would more than satisfy the Master’s Degree requirement. We therefore respectfully request that the Government consider 5 additional years of experience and a Professional Engineer license may be substituted for a Master’s Degree for the Mining Engineer.

Response: The Mining Engineer must have a degree in Mining Engineering. A Professional Engineer license and 5 additional years of experience of work on mining sites is a suitable substitute for a Master’s Degree in Mining Engineering, provided the Mining Engineer has an undergraduate degree in Mining Engineering.

13) Question: RFP Section L, Page 91 of 118. Under Factor 5 – Past Performance, the text indicates that “This volume shall contain past performance information for each project submitted by the Offeror in Factor 1 (Team Experience), and past performance for each Team Member identified in Factor 4 (Organizational Approach). As the required PPIRS reports and PPQs address the information for each project submitted in Factor 1, it is unclear what information is required to provide past performance for each Team Member identified in Factor 4. Is a narrative discussing general past performance of each Team Member required in addition to PPIRS and PPQ information?

Response: No, a narrative is not required. Experience of each proposed Team Member should be submitted in Factor 1 and their proposed roles on the project identified in Factor

4. If Past Performance information for each Team Member submitted in Factor 1 is provided, as required by the RFP Factors 5.a. and 5.b., no further past performance information is required.

14) Question: RFP Section L, page 88, of the RFP states: “NOTE: 11x17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations; however, each 11x17 page counts as two pages.” Are Offerors permitted to submit project descriptions in an 11x17 format?

Response: Yes, offerors are permitted to submit project descriptions on 11x17 format.

Each 11x17 page will be counted as two pages.

15) Question: Page 87: May project summaries be formatted as tables and thus considered as 11x17s?

Response: See response to Question #14.

16) Question: Factor 6 Section 4 on Page 93 of the solicitation indicates a determination of adequacy from the cognizant federal agency of the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement is required. As this solicitation is a small business set-aside contract (Section B item 1, Page 2) and small businesses are exempt from full CAS compliance, please confirm that the adequacy determination is not required of small business primes or subcontractors.

Response: 48 CFR 9903.201-1(b) exempts contracts with small businesses from CAS coverage. The requirement for a CAS Disclosure Statement was included in this small business solicitation in error and the requirement is hereby removed.

17) Question: Factor 6 Section 5 of the solicitation requires a recent audit report that the offeror’s accounting system and the accounting systems for all cost reimbursement subcontractors have been approved and are adequate for accumulating costs under a cost-reimbursement contract If an unpopulated JV will be the offeror, please confirm that documentation of an approved accounting system for the managing member who will be using their approved systems for performing the cost accumulation and invoicing functions for the JV will meet this requirement. Alternatively, please allow contractors to complete a Pre-award Accounting Survey (SF 1408) so the accounting system review can be performed for the offeror prior to award.

Response: An approved accounting system is required for the accumulation of costs under the awarded contract. If a JV proposes to use the approved accounting system of a member to accumulate all costs under the awarded contract, this will be considered sufficient, provided the proposal clearly indicates that the approved system will be used for the accumulation of all costs under the contract.

18) Question: For an unpopulated JV as the offeror, please confirm that the Table I-1 will include only the JV mark-up rates since the JV members will be including their binding rates on Table I-2, as a subcontractor to the JV.

Response: An Offeror that is a JV, consisting of at least two partners or members, is the Prime. The Prime cannot be both a JV and a subcontractor at the same time on the same project. The offeror needs to consider whether a JV is the appropriate agreement to submit for use in this project rather than a Teaming Agreement between a Prime and a subcontractor. The members/partners of a JV, as the Prime, must provide their binding rates in Table I-1. Table I-2 is for sub-contractors only.

19) Question: RFP Section L, Factor 6, Section 5 Page 93 - Please confirm that subcontractors who will be performing work on a fixed price basis will not be required to submit documentation of an accounting system audit.

Response: In accordance with Section 5, Page 93 of the Solicitation, subcontractors performing work on a fixed price basis will not be required to submit documentation of an accounting system audit.

20) Question: Please clarify whether the Excel documents should be in MS Excel 2013 (on page 88) or MS 2007 (on page Appendix J Information for Completion of Appendix I-1, I-2, I-3, I-4, and I-5, Section 3. General Instructions, last bullet point).

Response: Excel spreadsheets submitted by the offeror shall be in an .xlsx file format readable in both Excel 2007 and Excel 2013.

21) Question: Appendix J Information for Completion of Appendix I-1, I-2, I-3, I-4, and I-5, Section A #4 and Section B #5– please confirm that backup information for ODCs is only required for items with a unit cost exceeding the micro-purchase threshold as currently defined in the FAR as $3,500.

Response: Yes, backup information is only required for ODC items with a unit cost exceeding $3,500.

22) Question: Appendix J Information for Completion of Appendix I-1, I-2, I-3, I-4, and I-5, Section B – Please confirm that an I-5 is not required for subcontractors who will be performing purchase order/field services such as drilling, well-installation, analytical services etc.

Response: Completion of Spreadsheet I-5 is not required for subcontractors performing purchase order/field services.

23) Question: Please confirm that the prime and subcontractors may adjust Appendix I-4 and I-5, respectively, to show/indicate G&A/markup for ODCs, subcontractors & travel in accordance with their accounting systems.

Response: See revised Solicitation Attachments H, I-1, I-2, I-4 & I-5 attached to this amendment.

24) Question: According to the RFP (pg. 89 of 118), “A project is defined as work performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity-type contracts, the contract as a whole should not be submitted as a project; rather, Offerors should submit the work performed under a task order as a project.” We are assuming when multiple task orders under one indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract are issued regularly to continue toward the completion of scope of work on a single project to accommodate funding constraints that the task orders will be considered a single project allowing a complete discussion per the RFP requirements of the project to demonstrate the similarities in size, complexities, etc.

Please confirm that this assumption is correct.

Response: Yes. Multiple task orders awarded under one indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract issued toward the completion of scope of work on a single project may be considered one project.

25) Question: Page 89: A project is defined as “work performed under a single task order or contract.” Please consider expanding the definition to include “multiple TOs at a single site.”

Response: See Response to Question #24.

26) Question: Seed Project, Task 2.4: The seed task order requires the contractor to develop an SAP/QAPP similar to the existing SAP/QAPP dated 21 Jul 2015. Please provide a copy of this document for reference to determine the sampling requirements for the proposal.

Response: The SAP/QAPP dated 29 November 2016 is provided as an attachment to this amendment.

27) Question: Seed Project - What is the treatment capacity of the existing bioreactor? Is the contractor responsible for building a second bioreactor, if the current bioreactor is not able to handle the anticipated flows from the wick drains or drainage swale?

Response: The treatment capacity of the bio-reactor is 15 gpm. The contractor is responsible for achieving the performance standard of treating the water collected from the EQ drains and the drainage swale to meet the Ambient Water Quality Criteria standards. As stated on Page 15 of the PWS, alternative holding storage may be required if the volume of water generated exceeds the treatment capacity of the bio-reactor.

28) Question: Seed Project - Please provide available Lidar data and CAD files.

Response: LiDAR data was appended to Amendment 0005.

29) Question: Seed Project - Please confirm that the installation of horizontal wells is no longer included in the design and is not included in the scope of work.

Response: The installation of horizontal drains is not included as a requirement in the Seed Task Order. Horizontal drains may be considered in future task orders.

30) Question: Seed Project - Is the selected contractor only required to “establish the rock quarry”, or will they be required to provide pricing for the rock crushing and sorting and sizing to produce the various materials as well? If so, should this sorting and sizing operation be included in Task 4?

Response: The contractor will be required to provide the cost for crushing, sorting, and sizing the rock to produce 70,000 cubic yards of material. The cost for this work shall be included in Task 4.

31) Question: Seed Project - If a contractor or engineering company has performed work at the site for the State of Maine (PRP) previously, will the Contracting Officer determine that they are ineligible to receive a prime contract due to COI issues.

Response: There is an established process for reviewing Conflict of Interest issues which is specified in the solicitation. Please refer to the solicitation, Paragraph 8, page 2.

32) Question: Seed Project - Can bidders visit the site again with potential subcontractors?

If so, what are the requirements for accessing the site?

Response: There will not be a follow-up site visit.

33) Question: Seed Project - Is wetlands mitigation part of the seed task order? If so, which

Task does this fall under?

Response: Wetlands mitigation is not part of the Seed Task Order.

34) Question: Seed Project - Any restrictions on clearing and cutting onsite? If so, what are the restrictions?

Response: Tree clearing is not allowed from 1 June to 31 July due to potential disturbance of bat habitat.

35) Question: Seed Project - Is there any power onsite? If so, what is the nearest location?

If not, do we need to bring power on-site?

Response: There is electric power near the front entrance to the site (on Old Mine Road). There is no power within the site. Assume that power will need to be extended 750 feet from the existing power pole.

36) Question: Seed Project, Task 3 – Site Preparation: Do Jersey barriers need to be installed in areas with steep slopes? If so, how many linear feet of barrier is required?

Response: There is no requirement in the Seed Task Order Performance Work Statement to place jersey barriers in areas with steep slopes. However, the offeror may consider the placement of jersey barriers in their proposal to ensure site safety.

37) Question: Seed Project, Task 5 - Can the waste rock that is removed from the upper section of the dam be reused at the toe of the dam?

Response: No. The waste rock removed from the upper section of the dam may not be reused at the toe of the dam. Rock placed at the toe of the dam must be clean rock obtained from the on-site quarry. Waste rock from the upper section of the dam may be crushed and reused within the tailing impoundment for the drainage layer, work platforms, etc.

38) Question: Seed Project - Can we use Waste Rock Pile 3 for a working platform? If so, are there any restrictions?

Response: Yes, Waste Rock Pile 3 may be used for a working platform. The contractor must take measures to ensure that sulfide bearing rock from Waste Rock Pile 3 is not inadvertently transported to non-impacted areas. In addition, the contractor will need to demonstrate that the additional material and equipment placed on the Waste Rock Pile will not impact slope stability of the Waste Rock Pile.

39) Question: Seed Project - Do the wick drains need to be designed to mitigate liquefaction?

Response: The vertical drains should be designed for consolidation, not liquefaction.

40) Question: Seed Project - Is the contractor required to install the vertical wick drains over the entire area that is shown in Basis of Design Drawing 12 of 27?

Response: Per the PWS, the contractor is required to install sufficient vertical drains to dissipate pore pressures throughout the entire tailing impoundment. The vertical drain selection and placement shall be designed to facilitate achievement of 90% consolidation within the tailing impoundment within 90 days.

41) Question: Seed Project - What is the required frequency for groundwater monitoring?

Response: Groundwater monitoring frequency is annual.

42) Question: Seed Project - Based on the existing design, what is the expected flows from the wick drains. This information is required to size the bioreactor and potential additional storage requirements.

Response: Per the Basis of Design Report (page 5-4), the expected average flow from the wick drains is 6.4 gpm.

43) Question: Seed Project, Section 6.3 - The RFP indicates that the mobilization of site trailers should be included with Task 3 – Site Preparation. Should the monthly rental of site trailers be included in this task?

Response: Yes, the monthly rental of site trailers should be included in Task 3 – Site Preparation.

44) Question: Seed Project - Should offerors assume that the bio-reactor is constructed and operates in accordance with the OU3 Final Remedial Design Report?

Response: The existing bio-reactor system was constructed and operates in accordance with the OU3 Final Remedial Design Report. Please refer to Appendix E of the Remedial Action Completion Report – Phase I OU3 dated March 2016 for Record Drawings of the bio-reactor treatment system. The Remedial Action Completion Report is uploaded to the following site (www.epa.gov/superfund/callahan).

45) Question: Seed Project - In what Task should offerers place on-site management staff?

Response: Costs for on-site management staff should be included in Task 1.

46) Question: Seed Project - What is the square footage of the tailings impoundment including the dam?

Response: Per the Basis of Design, the square footage is approximately 770,000 SF.

47) Question: Seed Project - What is the square footage of the slimes area that requires wick drains and consolidation?

Response: Per the Basis of Design, the square footage of the slimes area is approximately

350,000 SF.

48) Question: Seed Project - Please confirm whether the selected contractor is required to place the drainage stone and the stone platform over the entire tailings impoundment or only the area where the wick drains are needed?

Response: The drainage stone must be placed in a manner to facilitate the collection of water from the slimes to reduce pore pressure within the tailing impoundment, and accelerate the consolidation process, as well as provide a stable foundation for the placement of waste rock material on the tailing impoundment. Please see Section 9.5 of the Basis of Design for details on the construction of the stone work surface platform.

The stone platform should be constructed to support the EQ drain installation rig, and for the placement of fill lifts. Conceptual/example working surface calculations are presented in Appendix I of the Basis of Design Report.

49) Question: Seed Project - Task 2 Prepare Plans: Attachment G to the PWS is a feasibility-level evaluation for a design refinement. This refinement is now the basis for the work specified in the PWS. Is a Revised Final RD package being prepared by the Stakeholders to formalize these changes? If so, when will that be available?

Response: A Revised Final RD package is not being prepared by the Stakeholders to formalize these changes. The awardee 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 submitted together with the Work Plan (Task 2.2 of the PWS), which will be reviewed by USACE, EPA, Maine DOT, and Maine DEP.

50) Question: Seed Project, Task 2 Prepare Plans: If a revised RD package will be provided prior to construction to formalize USACE’s feasibility-level design refinement, is it expected that the contractor, as part of the Work Plan development, will prepare revised and stamped construction documents that formalize the USACE’s feasibility-level evaluation and design refinement (i.e. Attachment G)?

Response: See Response to Comment #49.

51) Question: Seed Project, Task 4 Establish On-Site Quarry at Dyer Hill: Is crushing, screening, and/or stockpiling of quarried stone or other materials restricted to the staging areas shown in Sheets C-101 and C-117 of the Final RD?

Response: The offeror may propose an alternative location, or additional locations, for staging areas. The proposed locations will be required to be documented in the Work Plan with drawings and specifications.

52) Question: Seed Project, Task 5 (CPFF) - Reduce Dam Height. The PWS states the contractor shall “Minimize impacts to wetland at toe of slope”. But later in the PWS under “Refined Design for Tailing Impoundment Remediation”, it is stated that unavoidable wetlands destruction will occur (20,000 SF). Please clarify the locations of protected versus unavoidable destroyed wetlands.

Response: Per Table 1 of the PWS, the offeror shall make every effort to minimize impacts to the wetlands. However, it is recognized that some wetland impacts are unavoidable due to the close proximity of the wetlands to the toe of the dam.

53) Question: Seed Project, Task 10 - Monthly Site Inspection, and Operation and Maintenance of Existing Water Treatment System: Has the historical performance of the bioreactor treatment system been as predicted in the Final RD (e.g. effectiveness, performance, and overall maintenance requirements)?

Response: The bioreactor has performed as designed in terms of reducing contaminant levels. The corrected Monthly Monitoring Report (April 2017) provides details of the monthly maintenance and monitoring of the treatment system and is provided as an attachment to this Amendment.

54) Question: Seed Project - Several components shown in the final remedial design and described in the RFP as somewhat critical for the seed project did not appear to be present.

These include: the southern surface water retention basin; southern bioreactor; northern detention basin. While another detention basin not shown in the design is located in the in the vicinity of WR1. Can a current existing conditions plan be provided?

Response: The construction of the two storm water treatment ponds, southern bioreactor, and northern detention basin are not part of the Seed Task Order. Per Task 6 of the PWS, the offeror may need to provide alternative water holding storage (storage tank, temporary basin.) during periods of high flow from the EQ drains and the constructed swale prior to treatment in the bioreactor. The Remedial Action Completion Report documenting remedial actions conducted since the Basis of Design Report is provided at www.epa.gov/superfund/Callahan.

55) Question: Seed Project, Task 10 Monthly Site Inspection, and Operation and

Maintenance of Existing Water Treatment System - What is the storage capacity of the two storm water treatment ponds that will handle overflow from the bioreactors?

Response: See response to Question #54.

56) Question: Seed Project - Is it expected that the technical approach and costs provided for the seed TO will include the construction of the detention basin(s) and remaining bioreactor?

Response: See response to Question #54.

57) Question: Seed Project - The basis of design report indicates that instrumentation/ monitoring should be undertaken prior to various stages of construction. Can you clarify whether any excavation activities within the waste rock and proposed swale area can occur prior to the installation of instrumentation, or will instrumentation need to be installed prior to any excavation activities?

Response: Instrumentation must be installed prior to principle construction activities, including excavation and placement of waste rock material, or excavation of the proposed swale.

58) Question: Are resumes required in the SF330 format?

Response: There is no format requirement for the resumes, however, all content required by the solicitation must be provided.

59) Question: There are discrepancies between the description of work within the Seed Task Order and the USACE Design Refinement Feasibility Evaluation Memorandum. Which document supersedes when discrepancies are identified?

Response: Please identify the discrepancies between the Seed Task Order PWS and the USACE Design Refinement Feasibility Evaluation Memorandum.

60) Question: Is a professional geologist with a master’s degree and suitable mining experience acceptable in the role of Mining Engineer?

Response: Please see response to question #12.

61) Question: Page 2 – Section B – General Information – Item 8 – Conflict of Interest

Clause: What does the CENAE consider a potential conflict of interest; any past performance at the site, or a specific type of service at the site?

Response: Per the requirements of the solicitation at par. 8, page 2 and FAR Part 9.5, the Contracting Officer will review all offers for potential Conflict of Interest issues.

Performance of past work at the site does not necessarily preclude future work.

62) Question: Page 3 – Section C – 1. Contract Procurement Objectives and Overview – The

CENAE indicates that task orders may include among other things – “engineering support and/or design”: Since the OU3 Final Remedial Design, Basis of Design Report has been prepared by AMEC, what additional design elements would the USACE reasonably anticipate being required in support of this effort?

Response: As this is a performance based contract, the awardee is expected to provide technical expertise which may include alternative approaches to achieve stabilization and remediation of the Tailing Impoundment. For the Seed Task Order, the awardee will be required to submit plans and specifications with the Work Plan for technical approaches that are modifications from the design specified in the Basis of Design Report (see Response #49).

63) Question: Can the USACE reduce the required font size of “12” to “11”?

Response: No changes to the font size requirements will be made.

64) Question: Page 87: May a font size of less than 12-point be used for headers and footers?

Response: No changes to the font size requirements will be made.

65) Question: Page 89: Will CENAE evaluate resumes of additional disciplines beyond the five key personnel specifically requested? Please describe how additional disciplines would be evaluated compared to the key personnel.

Response: Resumes beyond the five key personnel specifically requested will not be evaluated. See amended Section L, Factor 2 – Key Personnel, Submission Requirements, below.

66) Please confirm that all references to New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site and solicitation

W912WJ-14-R-0003, particularly within the cost files, are only typos and that such pages are accurate and applicable to solicitation W912WJ-17-R-0005.

Response: References to New Bedford Superfund Site are typos. They have been corrected in the cost spreadsheets issued with Amendment 0004.

67) As we prepare the Attachment I spreadsheets, we are populating the rates (“fees” and

“markups” and “fully burdened rate”) with professional service companies and a construction company as a Joint Venture. The traditional breakdown approach for overhead rates appear to be different for the different types of contracts (A/E services versus construction services). Does the USACE have any additional guidance or example(s) beyond Appendix J that can be provided to assist offerors prepare these spreadsheets?

Response: As indicated in Response to Question #18, the Joint Venture members/partners would both need to complete Attachment I-1 (separate Attachment I-1 for each member/partner).

68) What percentage of the contract value ($45 million) does the irrevocable letter of credit need to be if used in lieu of a bid bond?

Response: If an irrevocable letter of credit is used in lieu of a bid bond, it is required to cover 20% of the bondable tasks in accordance with the table in Amendment 0003, or $3,000,000, whichever is less.

69) Question: In Amendment #4 revised Attachment I-4 & I-5 were provided to include

Tasks 2.6 & 2.7. These tasks appear to have been added to the summary tab but not in the individual tabs for each category of labor. Can these sheets be reissued as well to include Task 2.6 & 2.7?

Response: Corrected Solicitation Attachment I-4 and I-5 are provided as an attachment to this Amendment.

70) Attachment I-1 Prime Binding Rates and I-2 Subcontractor Binding Rates do not calculate

Total Burdened Rates Correctly – for the Labor tab, all of the Total Burdened Labor Rates draw from Direct Rate (OT) – they should be drawing from Both the Direct Rate and the Direct Rate (OT) depending on rate. Please update tables/tabs for each labor category and redistribute.

Response: Spreadsheets I-1 & I-2 have been corrected and are provided as an attachment to

71) Amendment 0004 Dated 30 JUN 2017, Excel Spreadsheet Attachment I-4 Prime

Contractor and I-5 Subcontractor:

a. The Summary tab is not totaling properly in Cell K25.

b. The tabs for Labor, Equipment, Subcontracts, ODC and Travel are missing Task

2.6 Quarry Design and Restoration Plan and Task 2.7 Quality Control Plan.

Please update tables/tabs for each subcategory and redistribute.

Response: Spreadsheets I-4 & I-5 have been corrected and are provided as an attachment to

72) Performance Work Statement – Solicitation Attachment G – Seed Task Order PWS, Section 6.0 Task Order Contract Requirements states “…Period of performance for all tasks under this Task Order is 18 months from Notice to Proceed” and references days, business days and calendar days. Where submittals are a crucial component in the desired overall 18-month seed task schedule, please clarify the timing for preparation, review and approval of submittals identified in 6.2.5 Task 2.1 to 2.7 following Notice to Proceed and

7.8 Deliverable Requirements including:

c. Please confirm that USACE will provide comments to Contractor Draft Plans within 15 business days.

d. Please confirm that, upon receipt of USACE Draft comments, Contractor has 10 business days to provide response to Draft Plan comments and submittal of Draft Final Plans.

e. Please confirm that, upon receipt of USACE Draft Final comments, Contractor has 10 business days to provide response to Draft Final Plan comments and submittal of Final Plans.

f. Please confirm that project stakeholders (Maine DOT, Maine DEP, and USEPA) will review applicable submittals identified in Task 2 – Prepare Plans concurrently with USACE plan review.

i. If review is not performed concurrently, please provide an estimate of the duration in calendar days to be included in the Proposed Seed Task Order Schedule for their review before Task 3 Site Preparation can begin.

Response: Please refer to revised Performance Work Statement (PWS), dated 7 July 2017, in Amendment 0005

73) Factor 5 – Past Performance – To limit burden on past performance contacts, is it possible to submit previous Past Performance Questionnaires if they were completed within the last year?

Response: Yes, previous Past Performance Questionnaires completed within the last 8 years may be submitted. See Amended section L, Factor 5 – Past Performance – Submission

Requirements, below.

74) Section 7 of the Cost Volume instructions states that I-2 must be completed by subs that are identified in Volume I (technical evaluation factors 1 - 4). Appendix J states that I-2 is to be completed by each sub identified in the Seed Task Order. If a sub is mentioned in Factor 4 of Volume I but not involved in the Seed task order, are they required to complete I-2?

Response: Yes. Binding rates should be provided for any Team Member, proposed in Factor 1 and defined in Factor 4, Organizational Approach and any further subcontractors included in Factor 3, Sample Task Order Approach.

SOLICITATION AMENDMENTS

All revisions are shown in red.

Section L, Factor 2 – Key Personnel, Submission Requirements, second paragraph, of the solicitation is revised as follows:

The Offeror shall submit résumés of the key personnel, listed below, that the firm intends to utilize in fulfilling the work required under all task orders issued under the resulting IDIQ contract. The awardee must gain Contracting Officer approval before replacing or substituting any of the key personnel listed its proposal for this IDIQ. Key personnel may work for the Offeror or a Team Member, as defined by Factor 4.

Section L, Factor 6, Section 4, of the solicitation is removed in its entirety.

Section L, Factor 6, Section 7, of the solicitation is revised as follows:

“vii. Section 7: Binding Rates – The Offeror shall provide binding rates for labor and equipment for all work anticipated to be performed under the IDIQ by the Prime offeror (Attachment I-1) and the Team Members, as described in Factor 4, and subcontractors to the Prime (Attachment I-2) identified in the offeror’s Volume I for technical evaluation factors Team Experience (Factor 1), Key Personnel (Factor 2), Seed Task Order Technical Approach (Factor 3), and Organizational Approach (Factor 4). The Offeror shall provide binding rates for overtime for all job titles/categories proposed or denote that job title/category with N/A for not applicable. The Offeror shall provide binding rates for all equipment anticipated to be utilized in the IDIQ contract, including equipment proposed in the Seed Task Order Technical Approach (Factor 3). The binding rates for equipment shall be documented in Attachment I- 3.”

The rest of Factor 6, Section 7, remains unchanged.

The note under Table 4 on page 87 is revised as follows:

NOTE: All pages including cover letters, Table of Contents pages, tables, illustrations, schedules, and appendices (but not divider tabs devoid of content) will be counted in the page calculation. Pages that exceed the above noted page limitations will be removed, not read, and not evaluated. Agreements or letters of commitment submitted for Factor 4 will not be counted toward the page limit.

The following paragraph is added to Section L, Factor 5 – Past Performance – Submission Requirements:

Alternately, Offerors may submit a copy of the client’s signed PPQ for a completed contract or task order. The Offeror may retain PPQs in its files for submission on future procurements. In cases where the validity of the completed PPQ is questioned, the contract specialist/contracting officer may contact the reference for verification or additional information. The standard PPQ for USACE is Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11) provided in Solicitation Attachment D. USACE does not intend to create and maintain a database of PPQs submitted by Offerors. Therefore, it will be the Offeror’s responsibility to insure the submission of PPQs in its proposal that are relevant to the solicitation. Alternatively, the Offeror may obtain an updated/new PPQ from its client(s) for submission as provided above.

REVISED SOLICITATION ATTACHMENTS

The following attachments to the Solicitation have been revised and are attached to this Amendment:

Amendment 0007_Attachment - best practices.pdf

Amendment 0007_Attachment_Revised Final Callahan Mine_Monthly Monitoring Report.pdf

Amendment 0007_Attachment_SAPQAPP.pdf

Solicitation Attachment H_Amendment 0007 - Information for Completion of Attachment I-1 thru 1- 5_23_August_2017.pdf

Solicitation(1)_Attachment_I-4_Amendment 0007_-_Seed_Task_Order_Rates_for_Prime_23_August_2017.xlsx

Solicitation(1)_Attachment_I-5_Amendment 0007_- _Seed_Task_Order_Rates_for_Subcontractor_23_August_2017.xlsx

Solicitation_Attachment_I-1_Amendment 0007_-_Prime_Binding_Rates_23_August_2017.xlsx

Solicitation_Attachment_I-2_Amendment 0007_-_Subcontractor_Binding_Rates_23_August_2017.xlsx

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 01-Sep-2017 12:00 PM to 20-Sep-2017 12:00 PM.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been deleted:

52.230-2

(End of Summary of Changes)