Amendment0010_FINAL.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 and extend the proposal due date. October 20, 2017 w ill be the cut-off date for submitting questions related to this solicitation.

The follow ing attachments are included in this amendment:

Amendment 0010_attachment - PWS revised 20171017.pdf Amendment 0010_attachment_I-4 revised 20171017.pdf Amendment 0010_attachment_I-5 revised 20171017.pdf Amendment 0010_revised Soliciation Attachment H_20171017.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Oct-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

17-Oct-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. Reference: Amendment 05, RFI Response to Question 22. The response states that “Technical specifications and drawings that deviate from the existing Basis of Design will require PE seal/signature.” In addition, the PWS Section 6.2.2 was revised to state “Technical Approach to accomplish slope stability within the Tailing Impoundment.

Technical specifications and drawings will be required to document approaches that are different than the approach detailed in the Basis of Design Report dated July 2015.”

Question: If the Offeror determines that the design presented in the Basis of Design Drawings are sufficient and proposes no changes to the drawings or specifications designed by AMEC to meet the performance standards of Attachment G, Seed Task Order PWS, please confirm that AMEC is the Engineer of Record.

Response: AMEC has no contract with USACE for this project and is not the Engineer of Record. The awardee will be the Engineer of Record for the Contract. Offerors are advised that this is a material requirement of the contract. See response to Question #49 and #50 of Amendment #0007, and Response to Question #73 of Amendment #0008. The Performance Work Statement (PWS) was revised in Amendment #0008 to clarify the requirements for the submission of plans, drawings, and specifications.

2. Question: If the Offeror determines that the design presented in the Basis of Design Drawings (AMEC 2015) are sufficient and proposes no changes to the drawings or specifications designed by AMEC to meet the performance standards of Attachment G, Seed Task Order PWS, please confirm that the Basis of Design Drawings will be Issued for Construction as 100% design.

Response: The Basis of Design Drawings will not be issued as 100% design drawings for construction. Per the PWS, the awardee is required to submit PE signed/stamped drawings, plans, and specifications with the Seed Task Order Work Plan.

3. Reference: Amendment 05, Answer 22 states that Technical specifications and drawings that deviate from the existing Basis of Design will require a PE seal/signature. Note that the PWS Performance Standard, Section 6.7 requires a 3H:1V slope for the swale. Note that the Basis of Design Drawings require a 4H:1V slope for the swale. The 3H:1V required slope appears to be related to design refinement feasibility memorandum (USACE 2017) which states that “USACE refined the existing design geometry by moving the swale approximately 40 feet to the east, increasing the slope of the swale in the Tailing Impoundment to 3H:1V instead of 4H:1V...” In addition, the design refinement feasibility memorandum acknowledges that there are volumetric differences between the two swale cut approaches and that changing the swale cut from 4H:1V to 3H:1V “reduces the amount of tailing material that needs to be excavated from 130,000 CY to approximately 80,000 CY.”

Question:

(A) Based on the PWS Performance Standard in Task 7 (3H:1V requirement for the swale), it appears that a deviation from the BOD drawings is required. If so, does that mean that the Offeror must provide PE signed/stamped specifications and drawings are required showing the 3H:1V tailings swale slope due to the deviation from the BOD Drawings?

Response: Yes, the awardee must provide PE signed/stamped drawings, plans, and specifications with the Seed Task Order Work Plan.

(B) If the offeror’s assessment determines that a 4H:1V slope can be used to meet the slope stability requirements detailed in Task 7, would a 4H:1V slope be compliance with the PWS? If so, please consider adjusting the language in the performance standard to meet either the 4H:1V slope or a 3H:1V slope.

Response: Per the PWS, all offerors are required to propose a 3H:1V slope for the swale with approximately 80,000 cubic yards of tailing material to be excavated.

(C) If the Government is not requiring the Offeror to execute a prescribed 3H:1V slope to achieve the performance standard, can the Offeror propose a different tailings excavation volume than the 80,000 CY currently required for Task 7, and be considered responsive?

Response: See response to Question 3(B).

4. Reference: Amendment 05, Answer 22 states that Technical specifications and drawings that deviate from the existing Basis of Design will require a PE seal/signature. Note that the PWS Performance Standard, Task 5 requires a 2H:1V slope for the dam refacing and no design drawings for the dam re-facing exist in the BOD. The embankment resurfacing appears to be related to design refinement feasibility memorandum (USACE 2017) which states that “USACE refined the existing design geometry by … adding rock at the toe of the dam to create a consistent 2H:1V slope.”

Question:

A. Is the refacing of the dam considered a deviation from the BOD?

Response: Note that the PWS was revised in Amendment 0008 to clarify the requirements regarding the submittal of drawings, plans, and specifications. Although not part of the BOD, refacing of the dam is required under Task 5 of the PWS.

B. Will the Government require PE signed/stamped specifications and drawings for the dam refacing as a change to the BOD, or is that work considered minor and incidental to the overall seed task order?

Response: Yes. PE signed/stamped drawings, plans, and specifications will be required for the dam refacing.

C. Alternatively, does the Government view the dam refacing as a minor or incidental change to the BOD (AMEC 2015) not requiring the Offeror to provide PE signed/stamped specifications and drawings?

Response: No, awardee must provide PE signed/stamped drawings, plans, and specifications for the refacing of the dam.

5. Reference: USACE Response to Question 13 provides instructions to Offerors to request AutoCAD files for drawings presented within the Basis of Design, Appendix M (AMEC 2015). Regarding the source and accuracy of the topographic data presented in the drawings, Drawing Sheets C-102 and C-103 (Existing Conditions) provide the following note: “See General Notes on Sheet G-002 for Mapping Sources Used to Develop Existing Conditions Plans.” Review of the General Notes on Sheet G-002 indicates that the “Elevations are Based on NAVD 88 Datum. Horizontal Control Based on North American Datum (NAD) of 1983, Maine State Plane, East Zone, U.S. Feet.” However, no additional information is provided regarding the source(s) of the topographic data.

Question: Given that USACE Response to Question 73 clarifies that the Offeror is the Engineer of Record for the Seed Task Order:

a. Please confirm that all topographic data presented in the drawings were developed under the direction of a professional land surveyor (PLS) licensed in the State of Maine and is of sufficient accuracy for use in the required design for this Contract.

Response: Per Note GN9 of Drawing G-002, existing conditions documented in the Basis of Design drawings are based on the following maps and surveys: 1. Aerial mapping by USEPA RAC contractor TRC, 2. Supplemental ground survey by CES, Inc. on behalf of Maine DOT (April 2012), 3. As-built survey for PCB impacted soil placement (January 2014) by CES, Inc. Section 2.3 of the Basis of Design Document provides additional information on the survey work used to develop the Basis of Design Drawings. Maine DOT indicates that all of its surveyors are licensed in Maine. In addition, LiDAR topographic data was collected in March 2016 (provided in Amendment 0005). The offeror must evaluate whether additional survey data is required beyond what has already been provided to confirm the accuracy of the drawing topographic data.

b. If no such confirmation can be provided, please clarify whether the Offer needs to conduct a survey under the direction of a PLS licensed in the State of Maine to confirm the accuracy of the drawing topographic data for the Offeror’s use as the Engineer of Record.

Response: See response to Question 5a.

c. Please clarify the sources of topographic data used in the Drawings including dates of survey and names and contact information of surveyors.

Response: See response to Question 5a.

6. Reference: The basis of design report (AMEC 2015, Appendix M (Drawings), Sheet G-002, General Note 10 (GN10) states the following:

In the Spring of 2015, MEDEP under grant funding from the USEPA initiated construction of dewatering/treatment elements within the tailings impoundment. These elements are being constructed based on components of the OU3 tailings draft final design issued in December of 2014 (AMEC 2014). Due to anticipated changes in existing conditions resulting from this construction, design modifications are anticipated prior to being issued for construction.

Question:

a. Please provide the OU3 Tailing Draft Final Design dated December 2014 (AMEC 2014) given its reference to potential changed site conditions and required design modifications.

Response: The elements that were installed in 2015 consist of a horizontal drain and a bio-reactor treatment system. The Record Drawings for these elements are included in the report entitled Remedial Action Completion Report dated March 2016, and posted on the EPA Superfund website (www.epa.gov/superfund/callahan). See response to Questions #10-12 of Amendment 0008.

b. Please clarify the changed site conditions referenced in this note and their potential impacts on the tailings impoundment design.

Response: The changed site conditions cited in the note refers to the horizontal drain and bio-reactor treatment system that was installed in 2015. See response to Question 4a.

c. Given that USACE Response to Amendment 8, Question 73 clarifies that the Offeror is the Engineer of Record for the Seed Task Order, please provide the Offeror with a listing of all the design modifications required to be executed prior to the drawings being issued for construction.

Response: The offeror must determine what design modifications will be required to meet the Performance Based Standards established in the PWS.

d. Also please clarify if the design activities executed by USACE in the 2017 Design Refinement Feasibility Evaluation Memorandum (USACE 2017) constitute all the required design modification activities required prior to the drawings being issued for construction.

Response: The offeror must determine what design modifications will be required to meet the Performance Based Standards established in the PWS.

7. Reference: In its previous response to Question 22, USACE states that “Technical specifications and drawings that deviate from the existing Basis of Design will require PE seal/signature.” The PWS, Section 7.12 was revised to state, “The contractor is required to submit technical specifications and drawings for the proposed technical approach if it deviates from the technical approach detailed in the Basis of Design Report dated July 2015.”

However, it is observed that the Drawings presented in the Basis of Design Report, Appendix N (AMEC 2015) are not sealed/signed by a professional engineer and are labeled “NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION”.

Given that:

The EPA Remedial Design/Remedial Action Handbook (EPA 1995, Section 4.7.6, Page

58) states that “the final design should be stamped and signed by licensed professional engineering involved in preparing and certifying the final engineering package,” and

The State of Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation for Licensure (ME 02 322 Chapter 2, Section 9(5)(C) – Application of the Professional Engineer Seal) requires that: “a seal shall be applied, signed and dated, including hardcopy or electronic versions, in the following cases:… On all professional engineering plans, specifications, reports or calculations formally submitted to contractors for bids or estimates, or when released for construction.”

Question: Please confirm our interpretation that even if the design represented by the preliminary drawings in the Basis of Design Report is confirmed to be appropriate, preparation of final sealed drawings will be required by the engineer of record (the Offeror) to proceed with construction.

Response: Yes, preparation of final sealed drawings will be required by the engineer of record (the Awardee) to proceed with construction. PE license may be from any state. See Response to Question #1, above.

8. Question: If the Offeror is to provide final sealed drawings and specifications, please clarify the Government’s review schedule and which PWS task the final drawings and specifications should be prepared under.

Response: The final drawings and specifications shall be submitted together with the Seed Task Order Work Plan. Per the PWS (Section 7.8), the government will provide comments within 20 business days of the submittal data.

12. Question: The response to Question 47 of Amendment 8 states that the area of slimes for consolidation and wick drains is, approximately, 350,000 SF. The approximate area identified for wick drain installation shown on Drawing C-110 is 300,000 SF and appears to exclude the PCB impacted materials as identified on Drawing C-101. The area of the PCB impacted material is, approximately, 50,000 SF.

a. Is the area of wick drain installation limited to 300,000 SF as shown on Drawing C-110?

Response: Per the PWS, the contractor shall install vertical drains to dissipate pore pressures throughout the entire tailing impoundment. Vertical drain selection and placement shall be designed to facilitate achievement of 90% consolidation within the tailing impoundment within 30 days of placement. The contractor is required to submit vertical drain design with the Seed Task Order Work Plan.

b. Are wick drains to be installed through the PCB impacted materials?

Response: Per the PWS, vertical drains are required to be installed to dissipate pore pressures throughout the entire tailing impoundment. As such, it may be necessary to install vertical drains within the PCB soils area.

c. Is area of the work platform equal to the entire area of 350,000 SF?

Response: The BOD includes a conceptual design for the work platform, much of which is summarized in the PWS. The offeror must determine the appropriate size and elements of the work platform necessary to conduct the work required under the Seed Task Order.

d. Is the area of the work platform limited to the 300,000 designated on Drawing C-110?

Response: See response to Question 12c.

e. Is area of fill placement equal to the entire area of 350,000 SF?

Response: Fill placement area, including PCB placement area, is approximately 350,000 square feet. Due to the design refinements provided in the USACE Design Refinement Feasibility Evaluation Memorandum dated 31 May 2017, there is likely a slight increase in the square footage of fill placement area.

f. Is the area of fill placement limited to the 300,000 designated on Drawing C-110?

Response: See response to Question 12e.

13. Question: The response to Question 60 of Amendment 8 indicates:

(1) the fill is to be placed in 2 lifts of 5 feet of total material height

(2) assume 90 days between lifts as stated in Table 1 of the PWS.

a. Specification 31 23 00 Section 3.06.B.1 requires a lift thickness of 12 Inches for the Tailings Material. This seems inconsistent with the 2-lift approach described in Amendment. Please clarify.

Response: Agree that there is inconsistency between the two documents. The fill placement approach will ultimately be dependent on the stability of the tailing impoundment during placement of the tailing material excavated from the swale. For proposal preparation purposes, assume 3 lifts of 2 feet each (total height of 6 feet), with a geogrid layer between each lift. The PWS has been revised to indicate that the contractor shall assume that 3 lifts will be required. Note that there was a typo in the response to Question #60 in Amendment 0008. The time between lifts is estimated at 30 days (as stated in Table 1 of the PWS).

b. The total height of fill is stated as 5 Ft. However, if the total fill area is 350,000 SF

(response to question 47) and the total amount of fill is 80,000 CY, the total height of fill must be, at least, 6.17 Ft. If the area of fill placement is limited to 300,000 SF as shown on Drawing C-110 and the total amount of fill is 80,000 CY, the total height of fill must be, at least, 7.20 Ft. Please clarify.

Response: See response to Question 13a.

c. Detail D on Drawing C-305 shows a layer of Geogrid on top of every lift of 2 feet. Given the revised requirement of 2 lifts at 5 total feet, is geogrid required at 2 foot or 2.5 foot vertical intervals, or, will this change based upon the response to question b, above?

14. Question: PWS and subsequent amendments direct bidders to assume two 2-foot lifts of tailings placement atop the working surface. Based on working surface footprint of approximately 280,000 SF, as determined from Design Drawing C-110, or the estimated 350,000 SF footprint of the slimes area indicated in Amendment 007, and 5H:1V exterior fill slopes, a minimum of three to four 2-foot lifts would be required to place the full 80,000 CY of excavated tailings (this estimate also accounts for a reasonable volume reduction due to compaction). Would USACE prefer that we only provide scope and costs for two 2-foot lifts of tailings placement, as currently directed, or should our scope and costs be based on our actual estimates of required work effort?

15. Question: The response to Question 60 of Amendment 8 indicates a consolidation period of 90 days. Please address the following apparent inconsistencies:

i. Task 6 of Table 1 of the PWS dated 09/14/17 indicates 90% consolidation in a period of not less than 30 days.

ii. Task 6 of PWS dated 09/14/17 (top of page 16) states: “… EQ Drain spacing of 6 feet will allow the tailings to achieve an estimated 90 percent average consolidation in 12 to 28 days.”

iii. Section 9.4 of the OU3 Final Remedial Design – Basis of Design Report indicates that “… EQ Drain spacing of 6 feet, installed in triangular pattern, will allow the tailings to achieve 90 percent average consolidation in 12 to 28 days.”

Response: There was a typo in Response #60 of Amendment 0008. The Performance Standard for the consolidation period is as stated in Table 1 of the PWS (30 days).

16. Question: As indicated in Response to 73, the Offeror is the Engineer of Record for the Seed Project. The change in the estimated consolidation time (from 30 to 90 days) indicates a perceived change in site conditions regarding the material properties of the tailings/slimes.

The estimated time of consolidation is presented in Appendix H (Wick/EQ Drain Evaluation

– Slimes Area) of the Basis of Design Report (AMEC 2015). As the Engineer of Record, the Offeror must be aware of any changes to site conditions presented in the basis of design

(AMEC 2015) or interpretations of work provided in the Seed Project PWS.

i. Please provide all calculations and other information supporting USACE’s revision to the time required to achieve the required 90 percent average consolidation.

Response: See response to Question #15.

ii. If any of the changes to time of consolidation are related to the recent horizontal drain installation and failure of that drain to perform as anticipated, please provide a complete description of the drain installation activities, data generated during that activity, and USACE’s interpretation of the data generated during that activity as it relates to the estimated time of tailings/slimes consolidation.

Response: See response to Question #15.

iii. If the revision in expected time of consolidation represents uncertainties in the tailings/slime characteristics and interpreted strength parameters used in previous slope stability assessments (AMEC 2015, Credere 2015, USACE 2017), please clarify if new data is available or if USACE is interpreting available data to have uncertainties. Please confirm that uncertainty with tailings/slime material characteristics should be further evaluated during execution of the FEMA required under Task 2.5 (Prepare Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring Plan

Response: See response to Question #14.

17. Question: Performance Work Statement (7 July 2017), Section 6.7, 2nd paragraph, 1st and 2nd sentence – “The tailings material that is excavated (assume 80,000 CY) shall be placed on top of the tailings impoundment in the “slimes” area (east of the swale excavation).

Assume 2 lifts for placement of the excavated material.”

a. It appears that the slimes areas should be to the west of the swale excavation, not to the east as indicated. Please confirm whether the slimes area is to the east or west of the swale excavation.

Response: Slimes area is to the west of the swale excavation. Please see response to Question #70 in Amendment 0008.

b. Is the assumed 80,000 CY of excavated tailings material all to be placed within the 36,000

SY working pad footprint in 2 lifts as indicated in the PWS, which would equate to two lifts that are much thicker than 2 FT thick (approx. 3-4 FT thick lifts)? Or should the material be placed in 2 FT lifts with geogrid overlying each lift as indicated on Detail D of Drawing C-305 in the Basis of Design Report.

Response: See response to Question #13a.

18. Question: AMEC Drawing C-305 and Attachment G, Page 15 indicates that tailings shall be placed on top of the impoundment area in 2 lifts. Note 2 on Section D of Sheet C-305 of the AMEC Drawings indicates that the tailings shall be placed in 2 foot lifts that shall remain in place for 2 to 4 weeks.

Please clarify if the 2 to 4 week waiting period is to apply to a 4 foot lift or a 2 foot lift.

Response: Although the actual waiting period between lifts will be determined by the achievement of the 90% consolidation within the tailing impoundment, offerors shall assume 30 days for consolidation between lifts (as stated in Table 1 of the revised PWS dated 14 September 2017 posted with Amendment 0008). As stated in response to Question #13a, assume three lifts for the placement of the excavated material.

19. Question: Specification 31 23 00 (Earthwork) specifies lift thickness, minimum density, and method and frequency of testing of the tailings material placed in the consolidation area.

Since the Offeror is also the Engineer of Record, are these criteria subject to the Offeror’s engineering judgement or are they requirements of the RFP?

Response: As a Performance Based Contract, the offeror is required to use both engineering judgment and meet the requirements of the RFP in the development of the Seed Task Order Work Plan. The awardee must demonstrate compliance with the Performance Standards specified in the PWS in the design package submitted with the Seed Task Order Work Plan.

20. Question: What preparatory work is required prior to placing the geotextile over the

Working Surface area, much of which is currently covered with cat tail plants? Will the cat tail plants be removed? Will the surface need to be graded to a level elevation? Under what Task will preparing the surface be paid, and should it be included in one of the Cost Plus Fixed Fee tasks?

Response: The conceptual design for the site preparation work required is identified in the Basis of Design Document, and summarized in PWS Task 3 – Site Preparation. All site preparation work is to be priced under Task 3.

21. Question: Will the fence currently installed around the PCB capping area need to be removed as part of the Seed Task to allow placement of tailings within that area? If so does the fence need to be replaced after tailings placement work is complete?

Response: Yes, the fence will need to be removed as part of the Seed Task Order. The fence will not need to be replaced, as long as the PCB contaminated soil is covered by a minimum of 1 foot of tailing material excavated from the swale.

22. Question: Along the northern face of the impoundment embankment, the toe of the 2H:1V facing stone will project across the northern toe access road, cutting off vehicular access to the bioreactor, and will pass over the top of Discharge Structure 3. Please advise if USACE would like to address this issue prior to submission of bids.

Response: The requirement to add quarry rock to create a 2:1 slope only applies to the eastern face of the impoundment embankment. The northern and southern faces are stable as currently configured. The PWS has been revised to clarify.

23. Question: PWS states 30,000 CY of waste rock removal to reduce height of dam by 20 feet.

Based on dam construction (i.e., upstream construction; approximately 15-foot high tiers;

~1.2H:1V exterior slopes), 30,000 CY is estimated to reduce dam height by only 12 feet. 20 feet of dam height reduction (which appears necessary to achieve required FS) would require approximately 58,500 CY of waste rock removal. Would USACE prefer that we only provide scope and costs for 30,000 CY of waste rock removal and stockpiling, as currently directed, or should our scope and costs be based on our actual estimates of required work effort?

Response: Offerors should assume 30,000 CY of waste rock removal from the dam, as specified in the PWS and the Basis of Design.

24. Reference: Seed Task Order, Section 6.2.2 (Task 2.2 - Work Plan) and Seed Task Order, Section 5.0, Table 1 - Performance Requirements Summary. Task 2.2 is a firm fixed price element of the seed task order.

Section 6.2.2 has three primary iterations (draft, draft final, and final) and is required to be completed before work commences. It also includes the "evaluation of geotechnical stability before, during, and after construction as a result of proposed remediation consistent with EPA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis [FMEA]."

Note that FMEA evaluations have greater cost implications than other routine updates to the work plan.

Question:

A. It is acknowledged that the Work Plan is a living document that receives regular updates.

As it relates to the Work Plan, how should offerors synthesize the requirement to perform continual evaluations of geotechnical stability with the requirement to submit the work plan prior to work commencing? Would the initial FMEA analysis be included in the work plan?

Response: The initial FMEA analysis shall be submitted with the Geotechnical Monitoring and Instrumentation Plan, together with the Work Plan, within 90 days of NTP. The final FMEA analysis shall be included in the Completion Report (Task 8).

Subsequent Task Orders that include work that could pose a risk of release from the Tailing Impoundment shall require updates to the FMEA analysis.

B. If the FMEA were to indicate that additional geotechnical or other data collection and assessment activities should be conducted, please indicate how offerors should account for these costs under this FFP Task.

Response: In Task 2.5 of the PWS, the offerors are requested to provide the Geotechnical Monitoring and Instrumentation Plan, which includes the FMEA. The

Geotechnical Monitoring and Instrumentation Plan shall be submitted together with Work Plan 90 days after NTP. The plans should complement and support each other. The costs for the implementation of the requirements of the Geotechnical Monitoring Plan shall be included in Task 3 - Site Preparation. Offerors shall make assumptions regarding additional geotechnical instrumentation that they believe is required beyond what is already specified in the Basis of Design Document in order to meet the requirements of the PWS.

C. Table 1 indicates FMEA should be included in the cost of Task 2.5, and Section 6.2.2 indicates FMEA costs should be captured in Task 2.2. Offeror recommends removing FMEA costs from Task 2.2, and carrying them exclusively in Task 2.5. Please clarify where FMEA costs should reside.

Response: FMEA analysis costs should be captured in Task 2.5 (Geotechnical Monitoring and Instrumentation Plan). The PWS was revised in Amendment #0008 to clarify where the FMEA costs should be captured.

25. Reference: USACE Response to Question 24(C) indicates that a consultation process with EPA Headquarters will be required as part of PWS Task 2.5 – Geotechnical and Instrumentation Monitoring Plan. 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) describes the consultation process. Attachment 2A of the Memorandum provides a description of the consultation package required to be provided to EPA Headquarters, including requires the following submittals be provided as part of the consultation package:

(A) Proposed FY 2017 Work Summary, (B) Fluid Hazard Conceptual Site Model (CSM), (C) Work Activities Plans, (D) Failure Mode and Effects Analyses, and (E) Contingency, Notification and Emergency Action Plan(s).

Question:

A. The PWS currently requires the Offeror to develop an FMEA. Please clarify if the

Offeror is also responsible for preparing a consultation package including the other four deliverables required in the EPA Memorandum as identified above.

Response: The awardee will not be responsible for completing the Consultation Package. As stated in the PWS, the awardee will be responsible for completing the FMEA analysis.

B. If the Offeror is required to provide a consultation package, please confirm that the consultation package should be provided as a deliverable requiring draft, draft final, and final versions. Also, please confirm that the Government’s review period (including EPA HQ review) will be 20 business days following draft submittal.

Response: See response to Question 25.A, above.

26. Question: The Proposal Adequacy Checklist is required with the Cost Volume per

Amendment 0008. Typically this checklist is required in scenarios where Certified Cost and Pricing is required, which often occurs on non-competitive procurements, such as follow-on

Task Orders under a SATOC. Under a competitive environment where Other Than Certified Cost and Pricing is required – such as this one – this requirement is waived. Acknowledging that many of the elements of the table are still valid under Other Than Certified Cost and Pricing, will CENAE waive this requirement during the RFP stage?

Response: Please see Section B General Information paragraph 2 of the solicitation. The Proposal Adequacy Checklist will be required at the task order proposal submittal level. The checklist is not required for submission with the offeror’s current proposal.

27. Question: Attachment I-4 shows tasks 2.6 and 2.7 on the summary sheet, but not within the labor or other sheets in that workbook. Will an amended version be distributed?

Response: Attachment I-4 was revised in response to Question 69 of Amendment #0007 to address this issue. (Note that Attachment I-4 is revised again in the current amendment to address another question.)

28. Question: In the instructions to bidder in Solicitation W912WJ-17-R-0005 Page 95 Section 10: Seed Task Order Costs states in the third to last bullet the utility and fuel costs shall not be included in the Seed Task Order estimate. Can this statement be clarified, are these costs to be reimbursed separately or to be included in the FFP estimate?

Response: See Response to Question #7, Amendment 0008.

29. Question: On page 94 of the solicitation under the cost and price submission requirements it states that “Disposal rates, utilities, fuel, supplies and materials will be negotiated on a task order basis and should be included in the total cost for the Seed Task Order as other direct costs (ODCs).” On page 95 it states that “Utilities and fuel costs shall not be included in the Seed Task Order estimate.” Please clarify whether utilities and fuel costs are to be included as ODCs or not included in the Seed Task Order estimate.

Response: See Response to Question #7, Amendment 0008.

30. Question: Will the burdened rates proposed be used for both FFP and CPFF task orders/work? If so, will the rates proposed be ‘capped’ on CPFF work? In other words, if our actual rates end up being higher than the proposed binding burdened rates, would we only be able to bill up to the proposed binding burdened rates for cost-type work?

Response: All binding rates submitted with the proposal shall be the rates used for proposing on FFP and CPFF task order line items, accumulating cost under cost line items, and for billing on all line items. No adjustment will be made to binding rates once these are accepted.

31. Question: If individual personnel used in the performance of the CPFF work make more than the rate submitted in the rate table, can they be invoiced at their actual rate or must they be invoiced at the rate in the rate table? Can the rate tables based on averages carry a contingency to cover personnel who make above the average for their classification?

Response: The Offeror must invoice at the rates they provide in Tables I-1 and I-2 and accept the terms of the contract that these are binding rates to be used during the contract performance. The proposed contingencies, like any rate proposed, will affect the calculation of the most probable cost of the contractor’s proposal.

32. Question: As an alternative to blending JV rates for the same or similar job classifications, is it acceptable to add duplicate or similar job titles to account for the JV members’ two distinct rates?

Response: No, it is not acceptable to add duplicate or similar job titles to account for the JV member’s distinct rates. The offeror is required to submit one set of binding rates. If the offeror is a JV, rates will bind both JV members.

33. Question: For the Key Personnel factor in Section L, Mining Engineer, Geo-technical Engineer, Civil Engineer, and Site Supervisor are all listed as Key Personnel; however, those positions aren’t included in the list of job titles in the pricing sheets. Should we add those positions to the pricing sheets?

Response: Yes, add those job titles to the pricing sheets.

34. “For the Government Job Titles (see, for example, Appendix I-5/Labor) are we restricted to using just the job titles given in the spreadsheet? In some cases, there isn’t a job title that corresponds to an expected role for our team members under the seed task order. In those cases, can we create our own job title or does the Corps have a list of standard titles that you’d like us to use?”

Response: See response to Question #33, above.

35. Question: Is the Attachment 1-4 intended to be the form of the offerors bid and be inclusive of all cost for FFP tasks and the basis for CPFF tasks. If so then will be acceptable to have line items that group expendable supplies etc. in the ODC tab and other misc. costs in the equipment or labor tabs?

Response: Yes, these attachments are intended to be all inclusive for all tasks. The labor and equipment tabs should only include labor and equipment, respectively. Rows can be added to the ODC tab in the Excel file to include as any items as necessary; offers are not limited to the number of existing rows.

36. Question: Amendment 07, Question and Answer No. 74 states that I-2 forms must be completed by any subcontractors identified in the proposal. This language is consistent with Appendix J, Part B. Given that purchase order subcontractors (e.g. clearing & grubbing, drillers, etc.) vary significantly in their level of sophistication, some purchase order subcontractors may decide to no-bid this work as a result, and thus USACE would not receive a full sample of market pricing for commodity work. Please consider removing the requirement for PO-level subcontractors working on fixed price line items to omit I-2 submissions.

Response: Only Team Member sub-contractors are required to complete Attachment I-2.

(see Amendment 0008, response to Question #2).

37. Question: Appendix J provides details on completing spreadsheet I-2 and I-5 for subcontractors. The second paragraph under the (1) Markups Tab for spreadsheet I-2 states “The subcontractor’s fully burdened rate shall include the subcontractor’s proposed profit.”

Under (7) Profit for spreadsheet I-5 it states “Subcontractor profit shall be applied to the summarized costs.” Is it the Government’s intention for subcontractors to include profit in spreadsheet I-2 and again in spreadsheet I-5?

Response: No, profit should be included in Spreadsheet I-5 and not be included in Spreadsheet I-2. Attachment H has been revised and is attached to this Amendment.

38. Question: With respect to the Seed Task Order, given that 1) adequate price competition exists for this procurement; 2) the FAR prohibits the requirement for certified cost and pricing data when there's adequate competition; and 3) DFARs prescribes the use of the Proposal Adequacy Checklist when the solicitation requires the submission of certified cost or pricing data, are we to assume that the neither certified cost or pricing data nor the proposal adequacy checklist will be required to be submitted with the Seed Task Order proposal, but that they may be required for future task orders where there won't be price competition?

Response: Yes, that is correct. Please see the response to Question 26.

39. Question: Under ODC (pages 94-95, Sections 7 & 10) the solicitation says not to include fuel, does that mean fuel for earth moving equipment should not to be included in the binding rate and will be paid for as an ODC?

Response: See Amendment #0008, response to Question 7.

40. Question: “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.” Should the contractor reach the estimated cost before completing the tasks (having provided required advance notice), will the contractor have the option to stop work until such time as the contractor increases the line item amount or terminates the remaining work?”

Response: FAR 52.232-20- Limitation of Cost and FAR 52.243-2 Changes—Cost- Reimbursement-Alt III are included in this solicitation and will be included in the awarded contract. Please see FAR 52.232-20(d)(2) and FAR 52.243-2(e) to understand the contractors rights and responsibilities in the above scenario.

41. Question: In reviewing the revised I-2 and I-4’s, along with the guidance on the 3rd page in Section H (I-2 Mark-ups tab), subcontractor labor would be burdened twice with Offeror mark-up, once in the I-2 and once in the I-4. Please confirm that we can eliminate the Offeror mark-up on the I-2 and apply the Offeror mark-up only on the I-4, on the total subcontractor cost to avoid double application of mark-up on subcontractor labor.

Response: Subcontractors shall include any pertinent mark-ups in Attachment I-2, except profit. Profit will be applied to the subcontractor’s seed task order in Attachment I-5.

42. According to Attachment H, the Markups Tab on the Appendix I-2 worksheet is for the Prime/JV mark-up, not the subcontractor the I-2 worksheet is completed for. Is this correct (i.e., there is no place for the subcontractor to identify their mark-up development and it should be included in the Hourly Rate)?

Response: See response to Question #41 above.

43. Question: The Attachment I-2 rates include all subcontractor mark-ups, including profit/fee.

Please confirm the formula in the I-5 can be modified to apply fee only to cost other than subcontractor labor.

Response: Profit/fee is not to be included in Attachment I-2. See Amendment #0009, response to Question 32.

44. Question: Appendix J provides details on completing spreadsheet I-2 and I-5 for subcontractors. The second paragraph under the (1) Markups Tab for spreadsheet I-2 states “The subcontractor’s fully burdened rate shall include the subcontractor’s proposed profit.”

Under (7) Profit for spreadsheet I-5 it states “Subcontractor profit shall be applied to the summarized costs.” Is it the Government’s intention for subcontractors to include profit in spreadsheet I-2 and again in spreadsheet I-5?

Response: No, profit should be included in Spreadsheet I-5 and not be included in

Spreadsheet I-2. Attachment H has been revised and is attached to this Amendment.

45. Question: On page 39 of the solicitation it discusses subcontractor bonding. If the Prime will be providing performance and payment bonds do the subcontractors also need to provide bonding?

Response: As stated on page 39 of the solicitation, performance and payment bonds are NOT required from the prime contractor on cost-reimbursement line items. The Government will not pay for or accept prime contractor bonds on cost-reimbursement line items.

Primes are only required to provide payment and performance bonds on firm-fixed-price (FFP) construction line items. Primes are also required to obtain bonds from subcontractors on all FFP construction subcontracts. See page 39 of the solicitation, which sets out the specific requirements for subcontractor bonds that must be obtained.

46. Question: Section I of the RFP, Subcontractor Bonding requirements section appears to leave the amount of the subcontractor’s bond to the discretion of the prime “sufficient to pay labor and material costs”. Can the prime elect to eliminate the subcontractor’s bond altogether since the prime is covering the total costs with a prime bond to the Government?

Or can the prime set the amount at what it believes is necessary to protect its interest?

Response: No, the prime may not elect to eliminate the subcontractor bonds. See response to Question 45, above. The prime is required to obtain subcontractor bonds for FFP construction subcontracts, depending upon the cost of the subcontract, as specified on page 39 of the solicitation.

47. Question: Will all required plans need to be issued Final prior to the start of quarry blasting operations; as it appears that this schedule would preclude the preferred fall/winter start date for quarry blasting work? Section 6.2.6 of the Seed Task Order PWS states that a fall/winter quarry operation is preferred to minimize impacts on local seasonal residences. We highly agree with this statement; however, based on an estimated award date of August 21 (adjusted from the original award date of August 1 stated in Factor 3 – Seed Task Order Technical Approach – Submission Requirements from the solicitation), and considering the schedules laid out for preparation, review, and approval of key work plans (Work Plan, Quarry Design and Restoration Plan, etc.), the earliest that field work could reasonably begin would be April/May time period to accommodate the required review sequence.

Response: The Quarry Design and Restoration Plan shall be submitted together with the Work Plan and Geotechnical Monitoring and Instrumentation Plan 90 days after NTP (see PWS Section 7.8 for details on deliverable submittal schedules). The Quarry Design and Restoration Plan must be finalized prior to blasting. It is acknowledged that the timing of the plan submittal and approval may affect the ability to conduct the quarry blasting in the preferred fall/winter time frame.

48. Question: Offerors have been told to price Task #4 assuming 70,000 CY of clean rock will be quarried, processed, and sorted. If the quantity is less than or greater than 70,000 CY, how will the Lump Sum Fixed Price be adjusted?

Response: Due to the uncertainty in the quantity of rock to be quarried, the offeror shall provide unit costs for two quantities. The two quantities are 50,000 cubic yards for the initial quantity, and 35,000 cubic yards for the additional quantity above 50,000 cubic yards. The PWS and the solicitation are amended here and below, to reflect this modification in approach. In addition, Attachment H and cost spreadsheets I-4 and I-5 have been revised to enable the unit costs to be captured. Adjustment due to variations in quantity will be addressed under 52.211-18 Variation in Estimated Quantity (Apr 1984) and UAI 5152.211- 9001 Variations in Estimated Quantities – Subdivided Items (MAR 1995), which are added to the solicitation with this amendment.

49. Question: For the defined quarry area, how thick is the soil layer overlying the bedrock?

Response: Offerors must make an assumption on the depth of overburden.

50. Question: Due to multiple unknown conditions and risks associated with the establishment of the quarry, would the government please consider the quarry task (Task 4.0) be changed from Firm Fixed Price over to Cost Reimbursable. We feel this will significantly reduce the overall costs for the USACE associated with this task and project.

Response: Task 4.0 will remain a Firm Fixed Price Task. The cost risk on this task has been reduced by permitting adjustment based on the variation in estimated quantity, Subdivided Items. See response to Question #47, above.

51. Question: Basis of Design Report, Section 10.0, page 10-1, paragraph 3 indicates that the quarry area is approximately 76,500 SF. However, the area defined as the quarry area as depicted by hatched lines on Drawing C-117 in the Basis of Design Report only appears to be 49,348 SF. Please confirm the quarry area location and square footage.

Response: The size of the quarry is estimated. Assume that 70,000 cubic yards of material can be recovered from the quarry.

52. Question: Is the existing sediment pond near the ore pad available for temporary holding of stormwater? What is the available capacity?

Response: The sediment pond near the ore pad is available for temporary holding of stormwater. As currently configured, there is limited storage capacity in the sediment pond.

53. Question: Is there an existing drainage piping system to convey water from the existing sediment pond to the existing bioreactor?

Response: Currently, only the horizontal drain is connected to the existing bioreactor.

54. Question: Is there any other information/studies/report that would help assess water quality issues related to the replacement of materials in the old mine pit?

Response: There is currently no study/report specifically evaluating the placement of tailing material in the mine pit. Placement of contaminated material in the mine pit is not part of the initial phase of work included in the Seed Task Order.

55. Question: Does the seed task order scope include installation of a second bioreactor, two storm water treatment ponds, and stormwater drainage channels that drain stormwater from the tailings impoundment to the stormwater treatment ponds as depicted on the Basis of Design…