W912WJ-17-R-0006_Amendment_0005.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

The purpose of this amendment is to respond to the requests for information(RFIs). All other aspects of this solicitation remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-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-0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-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 is extended, X is not extended.

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

14-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:

1 30

W912WJ-17-R-0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text:

Responses to the following RFIs have been adjusted from the response provided in Amendment 0002:

Amendment 0002

1. Can team subcontractors submit their confidential business information directly to USACE? If so, what is the best method for submission?

RESPONSE: All teaming information must be contained within the proposal package within the page limits noted in the solicitation. Proposal packages are treated as confidential and not shared beyond the selection board and Selecting Authority.

2. On page 72 – f. Section 5 – the second sentence reads “Other Direct Costs (ODCs), travel and disposal costs are not binding”. In Appendix J – page 3 – (6) Binding Rates for Other Direct Costs (ODCs) the second sentence reads “The offeror shall submit its binding rates for the contract cost of supplemental equipment and items not captured elsewhere in the proposal”. Will the ODC rates be binding or not binding?

RESPONSE: ODCs must be submitted for the Seed Task Order and will be binding for the Seed Task Order only. Paragraph A. (6) “Binding Rates for Other Direct Costs” in Appendix J has been removed along with the associated tab in Attachments I-1 and I-2.

3. Will quantities be provided for the seed task order for preparing FFP estimates?

RESPONSE: Estimated material quantities are provided in Appendix O of the BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT: PHASE 2 REMEDIAL ACTION

(RA), LORD BROOK SOURCE AREAS, REMEDIAL DESIGN (RD)

FINAL SUBMITTAL (950 pp, 194.54 MB). This document is referenced in both the Base IDIQ and Seed Task Order PWS and is available via the EPA website (www.epa.gov/superfund/elizmine, Document ID 565442). Significant (+10%) variations from the material quantities provided in Appendix O will be addressed through a negotiated modification to the Seed Task Order. PLEASE NOTE THAT

THE COST FIGURES IN APPENDIX O DO NOT REPRESENT THE

CURRENT GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE.

4. Can the actual AutoCAD Files for the Seed project be provided to interested bidders?

RESPONSE: Offerors who wish to utilize the AutoCAD files may request them via email to Contract Specialist Lennie K. Mattis (lennie.k.mattis@usace.army.mil). The email subject should be “W912WJ-17- R0006 Elizabeth Mine – Files Request.” Please include the email address of each report recipient in your email. Designated recipients will receive an email with instructions to download a zip file which contains the Phase II Non-Time Critical Removal Action Interim Completion Report, Elizabeth Mine Water Treatment System Final Operations and Maintenance Manual, and the AutoCAD design files. Quantities, volumes and dimensions are provided on pages 9 through 30 of Appendix O referenced in RFI#3 and the government considers these to be accurate. Offerors who utilize the AutoCAD files to develop their proposal do so at their own risk.

5. I am interested in submitting an alternate to the topsoil to be used for revegetation to this site- who should I speak to regarding that?

RESPONSE: Alternative approaches or sources of materials must be clearly identified in the Technical Approach section of each bidder’s proposal along with a narrative of the rationale for selection and confirmation that it meets the performance objectives of the PWS.

6. Will the bid bond be based on the value of the total IDIQ ($25M) or the seed project alone?

RESPONSE: The bid bond value needs to be based on the value of the Seed Task Order.

7. If it’s your intent to only provide four resumes in Factor 2 (Key Personnel), can pages from this section be transferred to other factors?

RESPONSE: No. Bidders should follow the instructions in solicitation regarding how page counts will be calculated. As noted, pages that exceed the limits stated in the solicitation will be removed, not read, and not evaluated.

8. Please consider, due to government holiday and site visit, granting a two-week extension.

RESPONSE: The due date for proposals was extended to August 15, 2017 via Amendment 0001.

9. Factor 2 (Key Personnel) is allowed to be 20 pages (Table 4, page 66 of 90), and 4 “Key Personnel” categories are described where resumes are required. Is it the intent of CENAE to restrict the total number of proposed resumes included in Factor 2 to only these 4 Key Personnel categories?

RESPONSE: Yes, only the resumes of the four Key Personnel listed in the solicitation are required. Additional resumes are not required.

10. In assigning an overall rating to Factor 2 (Key Personnel), will CENAE accept and evaluate additional resumes (while the Offeror conforms to the 20 page limit for Factor 2) beyond the 4 Key Personnel listed on page 68 of 90? Respectfully, the allowance of additional resumes beyond the 4 listed Key Personnel categories (while continuing to adhere to the Factor 2 page limit) are necessary to adequately present our proposed personnel experience relevant to the overall work requirements specified in the solicitation including: 1) the overall scope and performance based technical approach of the seed task order, the variety in types of environmental services specified by CENAE (page 7 of 90), as well as the specified “Expertise and Related Personnel” requirements (page 21 of 90).

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #9.

11. Respectfully, it is requested that CENAE extend the proposal due date from 30 days to 45 days. Historically, the majority of past similar CENAE environmental (NAICS 562910) best value type solicitations (multiple volumes – technical volume and pricing volume) have allowed for 45 days, including the recent CENAE Callahan Mine Site solicitation (#W912WJ-17-R-0005). The Elizabeth Mine proposal submittal requirements are essentially identical to the Callahan Mine proposal requirements. Further, the Elizabeth Mine Site contract and seed task order cost proposal is being competed and awarded on a Firm Fixed Price basis, and requires a bid guarantee. These two factors place more risk on the Offeror to seek out binding quotes from vendors, and to develop a sound firm fixed price technical approach and overall price (compared to the cost reimbursable Callahan Mine solicitation) warranting an extension to 45 calendar days.

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #8.

12. As cover letters, TOCs, tables, illustrations and appendices are included in the page counts, please consider increasing the 50-page limit for Factors 1, 3, and 4 to 60 pages.

RESPONSE: The 50-page limit is considered adequate to address the information requested and will remain unchanged.

13. It is stated “11 X 17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations” (page 67 of 90). Is it acceptable to use 11 x 17 pages for other narrative sections, including projects and resumes? It is understood that 11x17 pages will be counted as 2 pages.

RESPONSE: Yes, 11 x 17 pages can be used in all narrative sections and will contribute to the page count as explained in the solicitation.

14. On the second page of Appendix J (first paragraph at the top of page). The last sentence references “Section 7” of the cost proposal. On page 71 of 90 of the solicitation, Factor 6 Submission Requirements only list 5 Sections for the cost proposal. Will instructions for a Section 7 be provided? Does USACE intend to provide information related to a Section 6?

RESPONSE: The reference to “Section 7” in Appendix J has been revised to reference Section 5 Seed Task Order Price. Sections 6 and 7 do not exist.

15. In the Seed Task Order Proposal instructions (in Appendix J) – Item 2.A(5) references Section 10 of the cost proposal and 2.A(7) references Section 9 of the cost proposal. On page 71 of 90 of the solicitation, Factor 6 Submission Requirements only list 5 Sections for the cost proposal. Similar to the above question, will instructions be provided for Sections 8, 9 and 10?

RESPONSE: The references in Appendix J to “Section 9” and “Section 10” have been revised to reference Section 5 Seed Task Order Price.

There are only five (5) sections in the Factor 6 submission requirements.

16. What is the flow rate at the water plant?

RESPONSE: The water treatment plant was designed to treat maximum flow of 50 gallons per minute (GPM). The current flow rate at the water plant is 13 GPM based on latest monthly total TD/HD flows.

17. When was the water plant built?

RESPONSE: The water plant was built in 2008 and has been in operation during nonfreezing conditions (estimated May through November) every year since.

18. Will the pond be part of the scope of work?

RESPONSE: The sedimentation pond is not part of the Seed Task Order.

However, operation and maintenance of the Water treatment Plan, including the pond, will be included in a separate/future task order under this IDIQ.

19. Does the pond have a liner?

RESPONSE: No - there is a six inch perforated underdrain installed under the center of the basin and riprap (7-inch minus, 12 inches thick) was placed on the toe of slope (approximately 3 ft. high).

20. Will there be a second scheduled site visit?

RESPONSE: Yes – please see Amendment 0001.

21. Please confirm the requirement to provide direct cost and overhead data for this performance-based FFP contract (seems to be a contradictory requirement for this type of contract).

RESPONSE: Direct cost and overhead data is required to perform a bestvalue analysis and must be submitted.

22. The labor categories provided in the USACE costing sheets are appropriate for project management and technical support but do not include construction labor categories such as equipment operators, laborers, foremen, etc. Should those categories simply be added to the column called “Contractor Job Title” regardless of its similarity to the Government title? For example, the Contractor’s Equipment Operator could be added next to Senior Chemist? Or should the bidders insert additional rows to the labor rate tables to include these necessary categories?

RESPONSE: Bidders may add rows to the table if the job titles are not similar to those listed. Please refer to Appendix J 1.A.(2) and 1.B.(2) for instructions on adding job titles.

23. The equipment cost tables provided by the USACE seem to indicate that each exact piece of equipment to be utilized in the work be identified in the proposal, rather than the general type (make and model) of equipment to be used. Is that the correct intent of these equipment cost tables? If the bidder intends to lease equipment some of this detailed information may not be readily available. Can the information included in this table be limited to the general type of equipment to be utilized rather than the exact piece of equipment to be used?

RESPONSE: Attachment I-3 “Equipment Binding Rates” has been removed from the solicitation package. Bidders should provide Make, Model and size information for each piece of proposed equipment under the “Binding Rates – Equipment” tab of Attachments I-1 and I-2.

24. The cost proposal instructions for the cost tables Attachments I-4 and I-5 state that Fee should be added on the Summary tab. Should only burdened rates be submitted on attachments I-1 and I-2 and add fee only in the attachments I-4 and I-5? Same question for Equipment – should fee only be added in attachments I-4 and I-5?

RESPONSE: Correct, profit (correct term for FFP task orders) is task order-specific and therefore should be included on Attachments I-4 and I5 only (Seed Task Order) for labor, equipment, ODCs and subcontracts.

Total Burdened Rates for labor and equipment must be provided in Attachments I-1 and I-2 and are binding for the duration of the contract.

25. Appendix J indicates that the equipment rates shall not include fee or profit. Please clarify this restriction.

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #24.

26. Is there a geotechnical report available as part of the package? It would be helpful to know any characteristic regarding the rock we are to remove and relocate.

RESPONSE: Please refer to the BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT: PHASE 2

REMEDIAL ACTION (RA), LORD BROOK SOURCE AREAS,

REMEDIAL

DESIGN (RD) FINAL SUBMITTAL (950 pp, 194.54 MB), specifically Appendix H SOC West Face Stability Memo and Appendix K Haulage Way Borings. The entire document is referenced in both the Base IDIQ and Seed Task Order PWS and is available via the EPA website (www.epa.gov/superfund/elizmine, Document ID 565442).

27. There is ledge in other areas of the project that has to be removed as part of the excavation and grading operations (relocation of road, opening the haulage road access, etc.), that are not easily quantifiable. How is this quantity of ledge to be handled in the bid?

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #3.

28. There is not enough available data to quantify the amount of flowable fill required for the south mine. Is this to be paid as a unit price, how do we insert unit prices into our bid?

29. Page 67 (FACTOR 6: PRICE) states that Task Order 001 will be awarded simultaneously with the IDIQ award. Are the construction seed project Task Order 0001 quantities developed by the Offeror binding, or are just the Offeror’s labor and equipment rates binding?

30. Will the total price of the awarded Task Order 0001 be based on the specific quantities developed by the Offeror and included in Volume 2?

31. Page 67 (FACTOR 6: PRICE) states that the “seed” Task Order 001 is an actual project that is representative of the type of work that will be ordered. Does CENAE intend to set the total dollar amount of the awarded Task Order 0001 to match the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) described on Page 67 of the solicitation?

RESPONSE: Factor 6: PRICE is discussed on page 85 of the solicitation.

The Total Evaluated price (TEP) will be the seed task order award amount.

32. For FACTOR 6: PRICE, will CENAE be comparing and ranking the Offeror’s seed task order dollar amount total against the corresponding total amounts submitted by other Offerors? Or will CENAE only compare the Offeror’s cost estimate total amount against a government-prepared seed task order total dollar amount?

RESPONSE: All proposals will be evaluated as described in Section M paragraph B BASIS FOR AWARD and paragraph D EVALUATION

APPROACH.

33. Page 67 (FACTOR 6: PRICE) states that the Government intends to use price analysis techniques to determine the reasonableness of the prices and binding rate schedule from the Offeror. Since each Offeror is expected to develop their own construction quantities, how will CENAE make an “apples to apples” comparison and evaluation between the seed task order pricing?

RESPONSE: Factor 6: PRICE is discussed on page 85 of the solicitation.

Please refer to BASIS FOR AWARD on page 80 of the solicitation as well the response to RFI #3.

34. Prior to award of Task Order 0001, does CENAE anticipate conducting any negotiations with the selected Offeror on their binding rates or the quantities calculated by the selected Offeror?

RESPONSE: See responses to RFI #3 and 31. Offerors should also refer to Section M, Paragraph E, entitiled “DISCUSSIONS” on page 85 of the solicitation.

35. Typically, a monthly invoice and payment process occurs on similar CENAE contracts. For this Small Business contract, will CENAE allow for bi-weekly invoicing/payments during high production portions of this project?

RESPONSE: Yes, bi-weekly invoicing/payments during high production portions of this project will be allowed.

36. Will CENAE require contractor task order progress payments that are based on a mutually agreed upon and documented “percentage complete” basis or will CENAE tie the issuance of contractor payments to a project milestones?

RESPONSE: Progress payments will be made based on a mutually agreed upon and documented “percentage complete” basis.

37. Will the Corps provide AutoCAD drawing files as the drawings are not easily digitized in the format provided in the RFP?

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #4.

38. Section 5.5 of the Performance Work Statement – Task 5 – States additional landscaping in areas L-103 and TP-4. Is L-103 meant to be L-100? Are we to assume landscaping for other areas are to be carried under other tasks?

RESPONSE: Task 5 includes landscaping at TP-3 (Drawing L-104) and TP-4 (Drawing L-100). Seed Task Order paragraph 5.5 Task 5 – Additional Landscaping has been edited to clarify this. Please also see Appendix N Technical Memorandum – Wetland Restoration of the

BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT: PHASE 2 REMEDIAL

ACTION (RA), LORD BROOK SOURCE AREAS, REMEDIAL

DESIGN (RD)

FINAL SUBMITTAL (950 pp, 194.54 MB). This document is referenced in both the Base IDIQ and Seed Task Order PWS and is available via the EPA website (www.epa.gov/superfund/elizmine, Document ID 565442).

39. The drilling and blasting of the SOC Pit Lake West Face will pose a higher risk if completed within the parameters indicated by the Failure Zone angles. The duration of the project will be significantly increased and the frequency of the blasting will increase to 2-3 times per day. The rock produced from blasting will be very large in size and will likely exceed the 24” minus specification for the fill which would require downsizing or secondary blasting. These increased activities to complete the work carry a higher risk, in our opinion; one that far exceeds the risk of any rock slope failure. Please confirm that USACE wants all blasting work pricing must adhere to the failure zone angles and the restrictions placed on those zones.

RESPONSE: Offerors should base their proposals on the requirements of the solicitation and both the Base IDIQ and Seed Task Order PWSs.

40. The specification indicates blasting mats will be required for every blast. Again, this is a requirement that increases risk to personnel to prevent something that is a much lower risk especially based on the project location. The placing of the mats is complicated by the safety zone requirement, and will likely require a crane to place mats if carried out to the specifications. Please confirm that mats are required.

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #39.

41. How do we handle the risk allocation of pollution release on the project between the Contractor, USACE, and EPA?

RESPONSE: As stated in Specification Section 01 57 20 Environmental Protection, paragraph 3.01.B, the contractor shall provide means, methods, and facilities to prevent contamination of soil, water, and atmosphere from waste discharges due to spills and releases as a result of the CONTRACTOR's operation. If an exceedance is detected, USACE and the EPA will work with the contractor to address it.

42. Spec Section 31 23 10 P.11 indicates a “reference point” will be used to monitor blasting vibrations. Guidelines are provided however, these locations must be at least generally identified in order to design and price the blasting work. Please identify and locate the specific reference points.

RESPONSE: Specification Section 31 23 10 CONTROLLED BLASTING requires monitoring of all buildings within a ¼ mile radius.

An aerial depicting that distance with parcel lines shown is provided as an attachment to this amendment. Offerors should assume 14 parcel owners must be notified of the blasting work and zero (0) structures will require detailed pre and post inspection. If necessary, the EPA will be responsible for obtaining access to impacted parcels.

43. Groundwater monitoring of drinking water wells is required both pre and post blast.

Who will gain access rights to sample the wells?

RESPONSE: Specification Section 31 23 10 CONTROLLED BLASTING requires monitoring of all wells within a 2000-ft radius. An aerial depicting that distance with parcel lines and wells shown is provided as an attachment to this amendment. Offerors should assume 14 parcel owners must be notified of the blasting work and seventeen (17) wells will require detailed pre and post sampling. The EPA will be responsible for obtaining access to impacted parcels.

44. Please provide locations of all drinking water wells to be sampled.

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #43.

45. Trees that currently exist along the rim of the south open cut will be very difficult to reach and remove prior to blasting activities due to personnel and equipment restrictions within the failure zones. Can the trees be allowed to fall into the south open cut as part of blasting activities? Can they remain in the south open cut or do they need to be removed?

RESPONSE: The contractor shall make every attempt to remove felled trees and stockpile them in a vehicle-accessible location. Trees that inadvertently fall into the open cut which cannot be easily removed and/or compromise safety may remain in the open cut.

46. What existing site facilities will be transferred to the successful Contractor? Do we assume the existing facilities will be demobilized as they do not meet the project specifications?

RESPONSE: Existing site facilities that will be transferred to the contractor are the mini-trailer, water treatment plant (WTP) (including line silo and sedimentation basin) and electrical, phone, and internet service connection points. Offerors should assume all other facilities must be provided in accordance with the solicitation.

47. The government is intending to use primavera P6 according to spec section 01 32

01.00. Does the government have access to Microsoft Project? Since alternate software is allowed and the New England District has used Microsoft Project on multiple past construction projects, can the offeror utilize Microsoft Project for future scheduling? This would avoid USACE having two computers and two licenses as outlined in the specifications?

RESPONSE: Offerors should assume they must meet the requirements of the solicitation as posted.

48. Blasting permits are outlined in the submittal Table 01 33 00. As this is a Superfund project and site, is USACE requiring the permit to be obtained as Superfund is exempt from local permitting?

RESPONSE: As noted, this is a Superfund project and a permit does not need to be obtained. However, the substantive requirements of the permit need to be followed.

49. In specification section 02 52 13-2, the Contractor shall prepare a design for the treatment of the open cut water. Is the bid to only include the cost of the design?

How can the contractor accurately price a system that has not been approved by USACE or EPA?

RESPONSE: This is a PWS and remedial actions including any internal design and implementation of water treatment need to meet the Record of Decision and Remedial Design compliance for surface water. See Appendix A Water Quality Data of the

BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT: PHASE 2 REMEDIAL ACTION (RA), LORD

BROOK SOURCE AREAS, REMEDIAL DESIGN (RD) FINAL SUBMITTAL (950

pp, 194.54 MB). This document is referenced in both the Base IDIQ and Seed Task Order PWS and is available via the EPA website (www.epa.gov/superfund/elizmine, Document ID 565442).

50. Please define “protrusion” i.e. size, shape, etc. for removal as required under section 32 23 00.

RESPONSE: The specification refers to it as anything that could damage the geosynthetics (e.g., sharp or elongated). This is standard industry approach to any liner/cap construction.

51. Can the blast consultant be employed by the blasting contractor or do they need to be third party?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Blast Consultant can be employed by the contractor.

52. Can the blast consultant and the blast control specialist be the same person?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Blast Consultant and the Blast Control Specialist can be the same person. For safety reasons, an individual dual-hatted in these roles should not also be designated as the Blaster-in-Charge/Blasting Supervisor.

53. Air monitoring during blasting is noted in the specifications but no requirements are provided. Please provide the USACE requirements for this project.

RESPONSE: There is no project-specific requirement beyond meeting the requirements of EM 385 and OSHA. Offerors should propose an air monitoring program appropriate for the approach in their Technical Proposal that meets those standard requirements. The Blasting Plan should also take into consideration Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation/Agency of Natural Resources’ “Best Management Practices for Blasting to Avoid Environmental Contamination.”

This reference has been added to Task 1.2.5 in Table 1 of the Seed Task Order and included with this solicitation amendment.

54. Groundwater monitoring of drinking water wells is required by specification. Please provide desired sampling frequency and locations.

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #43. Assume one pre-blasting sample at each location and two post-blasting samples, timing to be determined post award.

55. Is the restoration specialist outlined in spec section 32 71 00 to be provided by the Contractor?

RESPONSE: Yes.

56. Spec section 32 71 00 calls out hiring an invasive species control specialist. How does USACE want the Contractor to price this work as there is no definition of the actual area of invasive species to be treated? How many applications are required?

RESPONSE: Restoration areas are defined in Appendix N Technical Memorandum – Wetland Restoration of the BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT: PHASE 2 REMEDIAL

ACTION (RA), LORD BROOK SOURCE AREAS, REMEDIAL DESIGN (RD)

FINAL SUBMITTAL (950 pp, 194.54 MB). This document is referenced in both the Base IDIQ and Seed Task Order PWS and is available via the EPA website (www.epa.gov/superfund/elizmine, Document ID 565442). Section 4.1 of the Basis of Design Report discusses performance monitoring. As a PWS, the Contractor should use professional experience to outline their approach and assumptions/backup.

57. How is the Corps sharing in the risk with the Contractor for unknown or unforeseen conditions that could be impacted from blasting?

RESPONSE: Unknown or unforeseen site conditions that are determined by the Contracting Officer to be outside the contractor’s control may be addressed via FAR clauses 52.243-4, "Changes" and 52.236-2, "Differing Site Conditions."

58. What is the application rate of limestone slurry to be used in the SOC?

RESPONSE: See Section 2 of the BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT: PHASE 2

REMEDIAL ACTION (RA), LORD BROOK SOURCE AREAS, REMEDIAL

DESIGN (RD) FINAL SUBMITTAL (950 pp, 194.54 MB). This document is referenced in both the Base IDIQ and Seed Task Order PWS and is available via the

59. If the swell of rock from blasting ends results in a higher elevation rock layer elevation than shown on the plans, will the rock be allowed to remain or will it need to be removed?

RESPONSE: Competent rock above the design elevations may remain provided that the contractor has met the performance standard for Tasks 2.3 Rock Blasting/Slope Stabilization and Task 2.7 Install Cover System.

60. Are there safety zones for the mechanical rock removal at the south mine?

RESPONSE: No – there are none currently identified. The successful Contractor will define any safety zones required in their work plans to fill the South Mine.

61. Will earthwork material quantities and volumes (common borrow, riprap limestone, gravel, lps, additional waste rock/soil removal…) be made available or is the Contractor required to prepare his/her own quantity takeoffs? Providing material quantities to all bidders may help ensure that all proposals can be evaluated equally.

62. Would it be possible to be provided electronic copies of the Design Drawings AutoCAD dwg files? Specifically, Drawings C-100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.

RESPONSE: Please see response to RFI #4.

63. Have any on-site import borrow sources (for common borrow, riprap limestone, gravel, lps…) been identified and would it be possible to generate material from onsite sources (other than potential clean soil cover borrow location)?

RESPONSE: Offerors should assume that all materials must be obtained from off-site sources.

64. Are there work time and date restrictions that need to be adhered to (other than blasting time constraints)?

RESPONSE: In addition to the blasting restrictions, VTDEC/ANR Forest Management Guidance For State Lands Northern Long-eared Bats includes a seasonal restriction so that all tree harvesting is prohibited during the period April 15

– October 31. This guidance document is referenced in the Seed Task Order PWS and attached to this solicitation amendment. Normal work hours will be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 AM to 7 PM. The Contractor will not be permitted to work on Saturday, Sunday or legal holidays unless otherwise authorized by the Contracting Officer. Work scheduling requirements have been added to Specification Section 01 11 00 Summary of Work.

65. Due to the Holiday and the busy summer construction season tying up resources, a 3 week extension to the proposal due date is requested to allow offerors the time to develop a cost effective and compliant proposal?

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #8.

66. Are there weight restrictions on adjacent access roads?

RESPONSE: There may be weight limits associated with the Tyson Road and VT 132 bridges. Offerors should seek weight limit information on these bridges from the Town of Strafford and Vermont Highway Department, respectively.

67. Are there any test pit or boring information logs for the Additional Clean Soil Cover location?

RESPONSE: No.

68. During the site walk a couple of areas were pointed out as private property. Are all these areas accessible during construction? What is the current access agreement/ restrictions for the private property?

RESPONSE: The entire project site is located on multiple private properties. The EPA has current site access agreements with all property owners necessary to execute the work. There are no restrictions beyond those listed in the solicitation and amended herein. Any coordination with private property owners will be performed by the EPA.

69. Does USACE maintain and plow Copperas Road or the access roads to TP-1 and 2 / Treatment facility and lagoon?

RESPONSE: No. The successful Offeror will be responsible for maintaining all access necessary to execute the Seed Task Order as proposed in their Technical Approach. Site/road maintenance outside of the Seed Task Order will be included in a future task order.

70. Can we widen/improve Copperas Road?

RESPONSE: Temporary improvements will be allowed. Offerors should assume they will be required to restore improved areas to their pre-construction condition.

71. In Attachment I-1, there are a few different positions listed on the first tab (binding rates – labor) than are found on the second tab (labor calculated.) Can you please explain why there are different positions and if this is correct? The same question applies for Attachment I-2.

RESPONSE: This was an oversight. Attachments I-1 and I-2 have been revised to reflect the longer list of positions and those attachments are included with this amendment.

72. With regard to the submission of Binding rates required under Volume II, can a JV submit one set of unified rates or it is required for each member of the JV to submit separate binding rates?

RESPONSE: One set of binding rates may be submitted provided that the proposal clearly states that those rates apply to all members of the JV.

73. Page 66, Section A.2: May a font size of less than 12-point be used for headers and footers?

RESPONSE: Yes. Headers and footers should be no less than an 8-point font.

74. Page 66, Section A.3: 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: The 50-page limit, to include the cover letter and TOC, is considered adequate to address the information requested and will remain unchanged.

75. Page 67, Section A.4: May project summaries be formatted as tables and thus considered as 11x17s?

RESPONSE: Any project summary format is allowed provided it meets the submission requirements. Pages that have physical measurements of 11” x 17” will be counted as two pages (counted as four pages if double-sided).

76. Page 68, Factor 1: A project is defined as “work performed under a single task order or contract.” Please consider expanding the definition to include “multiple contiguous TOs at a single site.”

RESPONSE: The definition of “project” remains unchanged.

77. Particularly for cost-related files, please confirm that all references to New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site and/or solicitation W912WJ-14-R-0003 are only typos and that such pages are accurate and applicable to solicitation W912WJ-17-R-0006.

RESPONSE: The New Bedford references have been removed. All attachments are accurate and applicable to this solicitation W912WJ-17-R-0006.

78. Appendices A (PPQ), B (JV Instructions), C (Design Drawings), D (Specification), I (Rate Tables), and J (Information for Completion of Appendix J) appear to have all been provided with the solicitation on FBO. Will CENAE be supplying Appendices E, F, G, H (SOC West Face Stability Memo referenced), or any other Appendices?

RESPONSE: The entire Basis of Design including appendices is available via the

79. Page 70, Factor 5: The 1st paragraph requires that past performance information be provided for each project submitted by the Offeror, but the same paragraph then asks for past performance information (not specifying for Team Members’ projects submitted in Factor 1) for each Team Member. Is this paragraph asking for past performance information for Team Members beyond information pertaining to the projects provided in Factor 1? Please clarify whether or not CENAE desires any additional information beyond strictly the contract number, contract place of performance, DUNS number, and Delivery Order number for Federal projects plus the sealed PPQs for non-Federal projects for only the projects submitted in Factor 1.

If additional information is desired, please specify the nature of that additional information.

RESPONSE: Offerors should submit the past performance information requested in the Factor 5 paragraphs a. (Fed projects) or b. (non-Fed projects) for each of the projects submitted under Factor 1 (Team Experience). Offerors should submit additional past performance information (meeting requirements of paragraphs a. or b.

for each Team Member identified in Factor 4 (Organizational Approach) that is not already represented by past performance information submitted for Factor 1.

80. Appendix J, I-2/I-4 Binding Rates (Subcontractor), Current PWS does not differentiate binding rates for onsite subcontractors vs. offsite subcontractors. “The offeror must provide binding rates for subcontractors proposed to be utilized in the Seed Task order Technical approach regardless of the percentage of work performed by the subcontractor.“ Please confirm if offsite subcontractors (laboratory, data validation, geotech, etc.) would not be required to fill out binding rate tables where labor/equipment rates would not apply. There is a sheet for Subcontractor ODCs in I2 and I-4, but it does not have any entries for sub costs. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: Only off-site subcontractors who bill using labor and equipment rates need to submit binding rates in Attachment I-2. See also response to RFI #2.

81. Should one Attachment I-1 rate table be submitted for a Joint Venture or should a separate rate table for each member of the Joint Venture be provided?

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #72.

82. Appendix J – Do all tabs within Appendix I-1, I-2, and I-3 go exclusively in Volume II, Section 4?

RESPONSE: Yes, Attachments I-1 and I-2 (all tabs) should be submitted in Volume II Section 4. Attachment I-3 has been eliminated along with the ODCs tab in Attachments I-1 and I-2. See response to RFIs #2 and #23.

83. Appendix J – Can the binding rate labor tables found within Appendix I-1 and I-2 be revised to include field categories as well as overtime rates?

RESPONSE: Offerors may add job titles as needed (field or office) to both Attachment I-1 and I-2. Overtime rates are provided in column F.

84. Appendix J Information for Completion of Appendix, Section 2(7) – Please clarify the “in accordance with the fee approach in Section 9 of the cost proposal” instructions as there is no Section 9 of the cost proposal.

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #15.

85. Will the government provide specific quantities to make quantities the same for all bidders? If not, are bidders expected to determine baseline quantities for the proposal using the provided PDF drawings, or will CAD drawings be provided??or

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #3 and RFI#4.

86. Would you consider unit rates for quantities with inclusion of the variation in estimated quantities clause?

87. General: It appears that existing drawings were generated based on aerial imagery (2012) which may not be as accurate as land based surveying. How does the government plan to handle changes in quantities if progress and measured milestones are confirmed via land based surveying methods (vs. aerial imagery) and if discrepancies exist and/or if site conditions yield differences in assumed quantities based on the information provided?

88. Please confirm if there are any excess stockpiled borrow materials (i.e. gravel, topsoil, rip-rap) exist onsite for reuse and approximate quantities/locations, or specify if suitable in-situ locations can be used for borrow material and locations (if applicable).

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #63.

89. Is the contractor responsible for the removal and disposal of underwater debris (cultural debris) from the pit lake whose debris quantities were not quantified in the bid documents?

RESPONSE: The government is aware of one automobile frame submerged in the SOC pit lake that must be removed. Offerors should assume that no other major debris or contamination exists requiring removal. If found, major debris requiring removal will be addressed via modification to the task order.

90. Will daily portable power (gen packs) be allowed at staging areas, S. Mine and S.

Open Cut, due to lack of overhead power onsite, and if so what will be the restrictions on noise levels?

RESPONSE: Yes, portable power will be allowed at staging areas, S. Mine and SOC.

Portable power must meet all requirements of the project specifications, including noise thresholds and spill containment (refer to specification sections 01 57 20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and 01 35 29.13 HEALTH, SAFETY, AND

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES FOR CONTAMINATED SITES.

91. PWS Task 5.1.3: Please confirm proposed location for government trailer and amenities.

RESPONSE: The current location of the Government trailer area and potential staging areas are noted on the design drawings. The bidders should propose a location appropriate to the work area and requirements for site access and control noted in the PWS.

92. DWG C100: Will the government allow for additional clearing and road improvements to mobilize in larger equipment (i.e. crane)?

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #70.

93. DWG C103: Please confirm that waste rock/soil removal area in Sharon is not to be included with the seed task order. Current drawing states, “approximate limit of potential additional waste rock/soil removal-verify and coordinate excavation with Contracting Officer?”

94. DWG C103: No clearing limits are shown. Please confirm that the clearing limit coincides with the prior waste rock/soil excavation footprint.

RESPONSE: Offerors should assume the clearing required is reflected in the quantities provided. See response to RFI #3.

95. DWG C-306-Haulage Way: “Contractor to reshape existing hillside to achieve 3:1 (max) side slope.” Should blasting be required in this area (waste rock and tailings can be removed via excavation)?

RESPONSE: The hillside along the Haulage Way is highly weathered. Offerors should assume blasting is not required in this area.

96. Section 01 32 01 .00 10 (Project Schedule): Please confirm if the spec section applies to the seed task order in building the seed task order schedule. The Factor 3 Submission requirements in the Solicitation are less restrictive than the specification.

RESPONSE: Yes, Section 01 32 01 .00 10 (Project Schedule) applies to seed task order.

97. Section 01 32 01.00 10 (Project Schedule)-page 6: Section 3.3.4 appears to have requirements for building commissioning and testing which does not seem to apply to the seed task order. Please confirm.

RESPONSE: Correct, any activities not applicable to this project cannot and should not be incorporated into the project schedule submittals.

98. Will CENAE please extend the due date for proposals by 2 weeks?

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #8.

99. Section 02 52 13 details that there is 450,000 cf of water in the SOC. Does this include the water in the cavern at the northern end of the SOC?

RESPONSE: Offerors should assume that the volume provided is the total volume to be removed.

100. Section 2.2 task order 2.2 SOC Site Clearing: References protection for the threatened northern long-eared bat, is there a season/time of year where the bats cannot be disturbed?

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #64.

101. Drawing C-102: Can we reuse rip rap designated for removal for the construction of the rip rap Erosion Break detailed in the cover system drawings?

RESPONSE: Yes, provided this material is clean and meets the requirements of Specification Section 31 37 00 for riprap.

102. Page 17 of 26, South Open Cut (SOC) Pit Lake Fill & Cover System Detail A

C500: How much slaked lime slurry is required to fill the voids? Please provide a rate for slurry application.

RESPONSE: See response to RFI #58.

103. Section 31 23 00 – Earthwork 3.07 G: Please provide an estimate quantity of slurry.

RESPONSE: See responses to RFI #3 and #58.

104. 31 23 00 Controlled Blasting 3.03 E: Maximum blasted rock shall be less than 3’ in any dimension. 21 23 00 Earthwork – 3.06 H.2 - Waste Rock and Soil Materials – The maximum Layer Thickness shall be 24”. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: Specification Section 31 23 00 3.07F states that blasted rock in the upper 5 feet of the rock fill shall be broken down by supplemental blasting, splitting, hoe-ramming, or other mechanical methods, and reworked such that the largest dimension does not exceed 24 inches. Blasted rock below the upper 5 feet may be up to 3 feet in any dimension.

105. Please provide a set of interactive drawings so that Offerors may perform a proper assessment of the project.

RESPONSE: See responses to RFI #3 and #4.

106. In the section entitled “Manifesting, Transportation, and Disposal Requirements” (page 25) of the subject RFP, can you please confirm that the Government will be the generator and will sign all manifests as such?

RESPONSE: The government will be the generator and will sign all manifests.

107. Can members of a Joint Venture (JV) submit separate binding rates for each member firm of the JV Entity?

RESPONSE: Yes. Offerors submitting separate binding rates for each member firm of the JV Entity must ensure that each job title listed on the Labor tab of Attachments I-4 for the Seed Task Order clearly indicates at which member of the JV that individual is employed so that binding rates can be verified. Please also see response to RFI #72.

Amendment 0004

108. Appendix B Joint Venture Requirements instructs SB JV Offerors to submit JV agreements demonstrating compliance with FAR 19.1403 which is specific to the SDVOSB Program. Since this is a SB (not SDVOSB) set-aside, please provide the applicable FAR reference, if required.

RESPONSE: SB JV Offerors must comply with 13 CFR 125.8. The reference in Appendix B has been corrected.

109. Factor 2: Resumes are required of the 4 Key Personnel identified on page

68. Our understanding is that other personnel resumes, like the Habitat Restoration Specialist described in the Specifications, are due after award. Please confirm that only the 4 Key Personnel (Project Manager, Mining Engineer, Hydrogeologist, and Site Superintendent) resumes are required within the proposal.

RESPONSE: See response to Amendment 0002, RFI #9.

110. Appendix J: Should profit be included in Appendices I-1, I-2, and I-3? If so, where?

RESPONSE: See response to Amendment 0002, RFI #24.

111. Appendix J: Where should the prime contractors mark-up of its subcontractors, specifically our G&A and profit, be reflected in Appendix I-1 thru I5?

RESPONSE: Prime contractor profit should be included in Attachment I-4 as noted in the response to Amendment 0002, RFI #24. Any other prime contractor markups of subcontractor costs should be reported on Attachment I-1, “Markups” tab under “All Other Indirect Costs.” Justification for all markups and profit should be provided in the narrative of Volume II Section 4 “Binding Rates.”

112. Appendix J, I-1 thru I-3: Should the Binding Rate table include all categories proposed or just those presented in the seed project?

RESPONSE: The binding rate tables in Attachments I-1 and I-2 should include all categories proposed for the duration of the contract. Attachment I-3 “Binding Rates for Equipment” in Appendix J has been removed from the solicitation. See response to Amendment 0002, RFI #23 regarding reporting equipment information.

113. The binding rate sheets do not have a separate column for G&A. Please confirm if this column can be added adjacent to “Fee” column in respective worksheets.

RESPONSE: All markups should be submitted under the “Markups” tab of Attachments I-1 and I-2. The resulting total burdened rates on Attachments I-1 and I- 2 are then utilized on Attachments I-4 and I-5. Profit should be included in Attachment I-4 and I-5 as noted in the response to Amendment 0002, RFI #24.

Justification for all markups and profit should be provided in the narrative of Volume II Section 4 “Binding Rates.”

114. Section L, Factor 6, d: Is cost and pricing data to be submitted with the seed project?

RESPONSE: See FAR 15.403-4 - Requiring Certified Cost or Pricing Data.

115. The Basis of Design states that remaining waste impacted soil at the South Mine will be excavated to remove an ongoing source of ARD. An approximate volume of 7,500 cy of waste soil is expected to be excavated and placed in the South Open Cut pit lake or Dry Crevasse and covered. Please confirm that 7500 cy remains and was not previously removed by others while constructing the cap for TP-1 and

TP-2.

RESPONSE: Offerors should assume that the material quantities and dimensions provided in the Basis of Design Appendix O are accurate. See response to Amendment 0002, RFI #3.

116. Would the Government please provide a copy of the Phase II Non-Time Critical Removal Action Interim Completion Report, Elizabeth Mine Superfund Site, South Strafford, VT, Nobis Engineering, Inc., Rev 02, 5 January 2015?

RESPONSE: The requested report, which is actually dated June 30, 2016 (same title), is 1.6 GB in size. Offerors can request a copy via email to Contract Specialist Lennie K. Mattis (lennie.k.mattis@usace.army.mil).