Amendment_W912WJ18R00030005.pdf

W912WJ18R0003

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 above referenced solicitation is hereby amended to respond to Requests for Information. The due date/time for proposals is extended to 29 November 2018 at 2:00 pm. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 41

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Nov-2018

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 W912WJ18R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Sep-2018

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

01-Nov-2018

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 13-Nov-2018 02:00 PM to 29-Nov-2018 02:00 PM.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been added by full text:

RFI AMEND 0005

1. Section C IDIQ PWS and Seed TO PWS - The PWS for both the IDIQ contract and the Seed TO states “In the event that there may be multiple milestones and/or deliverables for each of the performance objective tasks, partial payments will be based on the successful completion of milestones. Final decisions regarding the adequacy of milestone and deliverable completion resides with the KO or COR.”

PWS Task 1.2.1 – Project Management Plan states “A payment milestone will be established for USACE’s approval of the final PMP through the COR.”

Since this is a fixed unit rate contract, will quantities of materials excavated, placed, or disposed of be acceptable interim milestones for purposes of payment to the contractor?

If not, please provide examples of acceptable payment milestones and partial payment milestones. It is critical for contractors to understand what the government will consider acceptable payment milestones to submit a bid for this contract. Cash flow on the Seed TO and future expected TOs will be challenging for even a larger business if payments will only be made upon achievement of the tasks within Table 1 – Performance Requirements Summary, for example. Also, please clarify if interim payment milestones are acceptable.

RESPONSE: Partial payments may be made for acceptable work completed. The Seed Task Order Performance Work Statement, section 5.1.2.1 indicates that, as part of the Project Management Plan, “the contractor will develop and maintain an activity based schedule that fully supports the technical approach and outlines the due dates for all milestones and payable deliverables.”

2. Seed TO Specifications 00 41 00 and 01 22 00; Section L, Factor 2: Seed Task Order Technical Approach – Seed TO Specifications Section 00 41 00 Bidding Schedule provides for fixed unit prices. Seed Project Specifications Section 01 22 00 Measurement and Payment, paragraph 1.4 Bidding Schedule - Payment Items states “Payment items for the work of this contract on which the contract progress payments will be based are listed in the BIDDING SCHEDULE and are described below.” FAR 52-232-5 Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts is incorporated into the contract. Please confirm that progress payments will be made, and if so, how these are expected to be incorporated into the payment milestones established through development and acceptance of Task 1.2.1 – Project Management Plan.

RESPONSE: See response to Amendment 0005, RFI #1.

3. Reference Section L, General Requirements, the margin requirements as currently written are confusing to understand. Please confirm that all page margins must be at least one inch wide but may include headers and footers.

RESPONSE: Confirmed.

4. Section M, Factor 1 Evaluation criteria: “Manage significant, complex environmental remediation projects with a price or cost greater than $5 million”. Since this ID/IQ will require numerous smaller Task Orders, will the Government reduce the dollar requirement from $5M to $3.5M to allow to show more relevant projects?

RESPONSE: The requirements remain unchanged.

5. Is the contractor permitted to include projects that are substantially completed (i.e. 80%)?

6. If the offeror is an unpopulated JV, should each member of the JV complete a binding rate table?

RESPONSE: Offerors shall submit only one binding rate table. In instances where there are two or more parties in the prime offeror, the offeror shall submit a blended rate. Each required labor category of the binding rate table shall have only one rate submitted.

7. Reference under Sect. L Factor 1 Submission Requirements, under the organization narrative one of the requirements includes key personnel relationships. Please clarify what this entails. Is this in relation to the key personnel’s working relationship/history with one another or relationships with the projects worked?

RESPONSE: Offerors should describe any relevant relationships. For example, this could include for whom key personnel work and to whom they report.

8. Factor 1 instructions state that “A project is defined as work performed under a single task order or contract.” Will the government consider amending the definition to include single-site remedial action programs that encompass multiple task orders? For complex projects that do not have a dedicated IDIQ RAC, it is standard practice for USACE and other government agencies to address the site remediation through two or more task orders, sometimes spanning more than one IDIQ contracts. For administrative and funding reasons, meeting site remedial action needs over a multiyear schedule often involves multiple task orders.

9. The RFP defines a project as “work performed under a single task order or contract. […] Offerors should submit the work performed under a task order as a project.” Please confirm that offerors can also submit a project description that includes multiple task orders issued under the same IDIQ contract for the continuation of work executed for the same project at the same site.

RESPONSE: Please see Section L, Factor 1 Submission Requirements, which states in part, “For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole should not be submitted as a project; rather, Offerors should submit the worked performed under a task order as a project.”

10. Three different wage determinations have been provided with this solicitation (two SCA rates tables, and one construction Davis Bacon rate table). Please clarify which one is applicable to the work being performed under the Seed Project.

RESPONSE: General Decision Number CT180013 (Construction Wages) is provided for reference, but will not be applicable to the Seed Task Order. The Service Wages (both Services and for Hazardous Waste Pickup/Disposal Services) may be applicable, depending on the means and methods of the Offeror, and are the responsibility of the Offeror to determine applicable usage.

11. Reference Section L, General Requirements, B. Factor 1. May projects that are ongoing, but Significantly completed, i.e. greater than 50% completed, be utilized in demonstration of experience/past performance?

12. Per Section M, paragraph F Factor 4: Price, the SF1442 must be executed with an original signature. Since this is an electronic submittal and no hard copies are required, will an electronic signature suffice?

RESPONSE: Yes.

13. Please confirm that there is a conflict of interest with respect to the firms that completed the remedial design and feasibility studies for the Raymark Superfund Site, as these firms would have an unfair competitive advantage with respect to bidding on the current project.

RESPONSE: The Government will evaluate any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with FAR 9.5.

14. Under “Potential Conflicts of Interest,” the RFP states that “If the offeror has an organizational conflict of interest, it should also present its plan to avoid, minimize or mitigate the conflict: such plan would be considered part of the offeror’s proposal.” What level of mitigation will be considered acceptable for potential offerors who have previously been under contract to provide remedial design at the Raymark site? In previous procurements for remedial action contracts, the Department of Defense has determined that an impermissible organizational conflict of interest (OCI) exists when an offeror has previously been under contract to perform remedial design services at the same site. DOD has found, based on FAR 9.505-1, that there is potential for “biased ground rules” when a contractor’s work scope includes remedial design services and the same contractor seeks to perform a remedial action at the same site, regardless of whether they possess design details for the specific remedial action being procured. In addition, DOD has found potential for impaired objectivity based on FAR 9.505-3 if a contractor seeks to perform a remedial action having already performed remedial design work at the same site without an OCI mitigation plan.

15. Please clarify if we are to provide binding rates for only the Key Personnel as stated on the Binding Rate Table.

RESPONSE: Yes, that is the requirement.

16. The PWS for the Remedial Action Contract defines six key personnel; however, Section L.B (Factor 1: Team Experience & Organizational Approach) includes a bullet under the organizational chart and narrative section that indicates that this section should “Identify Key Personnel, including resumes.” Is it USACE’s intent that we simply provide the six resumes defined in the Contract PWS or do we identify which key personnel we believe will be required to successfully meet the project’s objectives? If the latter, will all resumes provided be evaluated equally?

RESPONSE: The six Key Personnel are for the overall IDIQ and for the resulting Task Orders.

Additional resumes are not required and will not be evaluated.

17. In the Binding Rates Table, Markups tab, profit is not listed under markups. Only Fringe, Overhead, and G&A are listed. Is profit not to be included in these rates?

RESPONSE: Profit is not included on the binding rate table as profit will be negotiated for each Task Order. The Binding Rate table is for the Seed Task Order and future Task Orders. Profit should be applied to the proposal for the Seed Task Order.

18. If the Prime Contractor has more overhead categories than Home Office Labor and Field Office Labor, may we edit the Binding Rates Table to reflect these additional categories?

RESPONSE: The table may be modified; however, the contractor shall provide a written explanation of the changes and reason for doing so.

19. If a Team Subcontractor is providing a rate for a position in the Binding Rates Table, may we edit the formulas so that the applicable markup from the Prime is applied correctly to the fully burdened rate from the Subcontractor?

RESPONSE: Offerors should use the subcontractor’s fully burdened rate and then mark it up accordingly based on the Prime Offeror markups.

20. Factor 4: Price, Section 5 requires offerors to complete the bind rates table regardless if labor is provided by the Prime or by a Team Member. The instructions do not stipulate whether a single Binding Rates table should be submitted for the team, or one for each Team Member. Section 6 of this Factor further requires the Offeror to prepare a fixed price bid schedule using the binding rates. Please consider that requiring a single binding rate schedule for the entire team in preparing Section 6 will result in an inflated cost to the government above the Offerors intended unit prices because all Team Members are required to use the rates of the highest cost member if the single binding rate table is required.

RESPONSE: The requirements remain unchanged. Please also see responses to Amendment 0005, RFIs #6 and #19.

21. Will binding rates only be established for the five key positions identified?

RESPONSE: Binding rates will only be established for the SIX key positions identified.

22. With respect to the binding rates, please confirm that the Prime and Team members can provide different fringe, overhead and G&A rates for the staff being provided by each respective company.

RESPONSE: There shall be only one binding rate for each category. Please also see responses to Amendment 0005, RFIs #6 and #19.

23. Will the rates established for the various positions to complete the Seed Task be utilized only for this seed task order? If so, will updated rates for the non-key positions be developed for each future task order?

RESPONSE: The rates in the binding rates table will be used for the Seed Task Order and all subsequent task orders under the IDIQ. Rates for non-key positions will be negotiated, as necessary, on each task order.

24. What disposal facility was used for the off-site waste material that was removed in earlier remedial actions?

RESPONSE: This information is not relevant to the current IDIQ.

25. How was the waste manifested (EPA waste codes) when it was transported off-site for disposal during earlier removals?

RESPONSE: This information is not relevant to the current IDIQ.

26. Do team members each have their own binding rates since each company has their own direct and indirect rate structure?

RESPONSE: There shall be only one binding rate for each category. Please also see responses to Amendment 0005, RFIs #6 and #19.

27. Do the burdened binding rates include fee or will fee be negotiated on a task order basis?

RESPONSE: Please see the response to Amendment 0005, RFI #17.

28. The RFP currently states, “Projects provided must be completed within the past seven (7) years, as of the issue date of this RFP, to be considered recent.” In addition to projects completed in the past seven years, would the Government consider revising this requirement to also include relevant projects that are substantially complete (i.e., 75%) as of the date of proposal submission?

29. Reference Project Schedule. As the project schedule is built in scheduling software, e.g.

Microsoft Project, is it acceptable to utilize a font size less than 12 point as long as it is readable? If not, can the schedule be excluded from page count requirements as it will require many pages?

RESPONSE: Please see Section L, General Requirements, which reads, in part, “Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size of no less than 8-point and may be landscape oriented.”

The schedule is included in the page count requirements.

30. Regarding experience project descriptions, at times the government subdivides a project at a given location/installation due to funding requirements/issues, resulting in multiple contract numbers. Therefore, as long as the work is at the same installation, is it acceptable to present the project in its entirety, including all contract numbers, in our project description?

RESPONSE: No. The requirements remain unchanged.

31. With respect to project descriptions provided in Factor 1, will USACE assign greater importance and higher weighting to projects where the Prime Offeror self-performed the key work functions versus a Prime Offeror who simply subcontracted out and managed key work functions?

RESPONSE: USACE will evaluate the work in accordance with Section M, Factor 1 Evaluation Approach.

32. Per Amendment 0003, for Government projects completed over 6 years ago, we are to provide a PPQ. May a copy of a CPARS be submitted in lieu of a PPQ? Many of our government clients, including certain USACE Districts, will not provide a PPQ if a CPARS has been completed.

RESPONSE: CPARS records are not retained beyond six years. Therefore, offerors may submit copies they have retained in their records in lieu of a PPQ.

33. Under which bid item should management of decontamination residuals be included?

RESPONSE: This effort should be priced in the bid item to which the residual is created.

34. Should we assume that our price for excavation, transportation, and disposal of additional quantities of soil should include all additional costs associated with excavating additional quantities (for example, confirmation sampling, home office management, site management, erosion and sediment controls, dewatering, etc.)?

RESPONSE: Yes.

35. USACE has clearly stated that this project is governed by Service Contract wages.

However, the Davis Bacon Wage Determination was also included in the contract documents. Please confirm that SCA wages apply to the seed task order, and that no DBA wages will be required.

RESPONSE: Please see response to Amendment 0005, RFI #10.

36. We have identified a team member to support key aspects of the overall contract PWS, but their role/responsibilities do not align to any of the five key work functions stipulated in Factor 1. Can we provide a named team member that will be evaluated in the proposal, but not provide a project description in Factor 1 for this team member since they will be performing other roles not linked to the five functions defined in Factor 1?

RESPONSE: USACE has identified the key aspects of work to be evaluated. The team members who are not contributing to those Key Work functions are not relevant to Factor 1.

37. Regarding the seed project SOW, should we assume that the consolidation area will be prepared under a separate contract? If not, please provide design details for the contractor to plan/estimate the construction of the consolidation area.

RESPONSE: Please refer to details provided on sheet D-03 (OU4 Interim Cap Restoration Detail 13) and sheet C-15.

38. The seed project SOW states “Limited Clearing of OU-4 is required for the consolidation and covering of Raymark waste.” Please provide the specific area that needs to be cleared at OU-4, and details of the OU-4 landfill base preparation requirements, i.e. removal of all stumps/rootballs, grading, proof rolling, compaction, geotextile, liner requirements, etc.

RESPONSE: Please refer to “Limit of Clearing” on Sheet Number C-13. Refer to Section 31 23 00 Part 3.4.1 and 3.5.3 for consolidation area build up. Refer to Section 31 11 00 for Clearing & Grubbing. OU4 site wide clearing will be incorporated in subsequent phases of the work.

39. May the Offeror price company-owned equipment in the Seed TO?

RESPONSE: The price offered for the seed task order should be all-inclusive.

40. USACE has indicated that no bid bond or performance and payment bonds are required for the Seed TO. The lack of required bonds on this fixed unit price TO suggests there are no definable features of work considered to be construction tasks. Please clarify whether the contracting officer has determined any work tasks to be elements of construction and require construction wages.

41. USACE has issued two wage determinations for Service Contract work. Please provide the contracting officer’s decision on which wage determination applies to each of the Seed TO work elements.

42. The project specifications references Contract Clause - Time Extension for Unusually Severe Weather. However, this clause is not located in the PWS or Solicitation documents. Please provide the anticipated days for Severe Weather for the Seed TO.

RESPONSE: Please reference added clause 52.236-4002.

43. The RFP states that Offerors can submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five

(5) environmental remediation projects that best demonstrate the Offeror’s Team experience on recent, relevant projects that are similar in scope, complexity, size, and price to the work required under this solicitation. Question: Which of the following options will earn an Offeror an “Outstanding” rating for Team Experience? 1) Submitting three project descriptions that each demonstrate experience in all six (6) Section M criteria; or, 2) Submitting the maximum five (5) project descriptions that collectively demonstrate experience in all Section M criteria.

RESPONSE: USACE will evaluate in accordance with Section M.

44. The USACE solicitation (Performance Work Statement) describes the Raymark Superfund Site (“Site”) as being made up of various Operable Units and further states that a single Record of Decision (ROD) was approved by EPA that includes OU’s 3, 4, and 6 as the Raymark Superfund Project. These statements within the solicitation indicate the acknowledgement that the Raymark Site is made up of nine separate OU’s constituting a single project. This Offeror believes that the intent of the USACE project definition (Section B. Factor 1) is to disallow the bundling of task orders from different project sites into a single project description. Therefore, if an Offeror’s Team has performed relevant work at multiple Raymark Site OU’s, (under a single IDIQ contract) it is respectfully requested that this specific experience be considered by USACE as an acceptable single project under Factor 1.

45. If we have a project that another Federal agency treats as a single project, i.e., provides a single CPAR to reflect work done at a single site, even though (purely for funding purposes) that project is divided into separate TOs (all of which were funded to allow continued work on this same project), can we combine these TOs as the Government has and include it as a single project for Factor 1 to be consistent with the Government CPARS evaluation?

RESPONSE: The requirements remain unchanged.

46. Section L, B. Factor 1: Can a project be defined as: “work performed at one site or at a single installation where the project may contain work performed under multiple Task Orders as long as they are for the same remediation effort at an installation such as multiple phases of one project”? This change in definition of a project is very relevant to a SATOC for a single installation such as the Raymark Superfund site.

47. Section C, Conflict of Interest: Will the EPA Remedial Action Contractors, particularly firms that prepared previous documents for OUs 3, 4 and 6, be conflicted from participating on this SATOC?

48. Section L, Factor 4: Please confirm binding labor rates are only required for the six positions listed on the binding rate sheet.

RESPONSE: Confirmed.

49. Our understanding is that for the Seed Project and this proposal, bonding is not required. The USACE runs a severe risk of ending up with a Prime Contractor that does not have bonding ability or limited capacity. How will the USACE evaluate the Contractor’s ability to bond future task orders?

RESPONSE: We do not plan to evaluate the contractor’s ability to bond for the IDIQ. Offerors are responsible for ensuring bonding capacity on future task orders.

50. We recognize that the USACE has stipulated that the Seed Project is considered Service

Work and therefore not subject to Bonding requirements. Davis Bacon Wage Act and the Service Rate Act were both included in the RFP. For the Seed Project, please confirm that offerors should price construction activities (excavation, earthwork, trucking to OU4, backfilling, etc.) under the Davis Bacon Wage Act, and support services (janitorial, security, secretarial, etc.) under the Service Rate Act.

51. Would the Corps consider Davis Bacon rates rather than service rates to avoid potential disruption by unions? We believe the use of Davis Bacon rates for the haul road procurement established precedent for the site.

RESPONSE: No. Offerors shall take the steps necessary to avoid disruption.

52. For the purpose of cost savings, would the Corps consider permitting the key positions of

CQCM and SSHO to be a dual-hatted role?

53. Air monitoring for the Raymark site is a very specialized skill because of the asbestos content of the soil. The specialists with this skill are smaller firms who would rarely have a $5 million project as most of this work is smaller dollar. Given how critical specialized expertise in this area is to the success of the project, please consider changing the project dollar threshold of $5M in order to include a project from a specialized skill subcontractor.

54. PWS, Key Personnel: Requirements for years of experience for SSHO are different in the PWS and in Specification 01 35 26. The PWS indicates “A minimum of two (2) years’ experience”, but and the specification indicates “minimum of three years' experience within the past 5 years”. Please clarify the minimum years of experience for SSHO.

RESPONSE: The specification requirement is accurate. The PWS has been updated, per Amendment 0005.

55. Section M Basis for Award – Part of the Factor 2 Evaluation Approach elements includes “Schedule and Sequencing” and the only reference to the general construction schedule for the Seed TO appears to be in DWG G-01. Can the government provide any additional details regarding the required or preferred order of events for sequencing completion of the Seed TO OU 6 Plates 1-4 and OU4 and whether there are any limitations or haul restrictions? Schedule objectives are unclear.

RESPONSE: The Contractor is responsible for developing the detailed project schedule. The Construction Solicitation and Specifications package requires that clearing not be conducted during the period of June 1 to July 31 and restoration plantings be installed during the periods April 15 to June 1 and September 15 to October 15. The Contractor may be allowed to conduct clearing between June 1 and July 31 if a Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB) habitat assessment is conducted within one week of the proposed clearing activity and the absence of NLEB is confirmed and USACE approval is granted.

In addition, USACE prefers the OU4 roadway be built prior to importing excavated materials to the OU4 landfill area, however, materials from the East Main Street properties may be transferred independent of completion of the OU4 roadway. Work to be conducted at Wooster Park should also be sequenced in order to minimize impacts to the neighborhood. The Contractor prepared Traffic Management Plan (Section 01 55 00) and Transportation and Disposal Plan (Section 02 81 00) will require detailed evaluation of transportation impacts on the neighborhoods and will consider school transportation schedules. The plans will include detailed mitigation measures to address these impacts. The Contractor is encouraged to identify time/cost saving scheduling strategies.

56. Are there any time restrictions for work due to traffic, residential areas, schools, etc? Will we be able to start early and go late (10 – 12-hour days) or be restricted to low-traffic times (8:30 – 4:30, etc.)? Significant time restrictions would of course impact schedule and cost.

RESPONSE: Please see Sheet Number G-01, General Note #6. The Town of Stratford has a noise ordinance in place that limits work on weekdays from 7 AM to 6 PM. Work shall not be performed on weekends or holidays without USACE approval in writing. All work trucks must stay on state roads and avoid Patterson Avenue, unless approved by USACE and the Town of Stratford as part of the Contractor’s Traffic Management Plan and Transportation and Disposal Plan.

57. In 6.11 of the Seed Task Order, it indicates that ROE is the responsibility of USACE or the EPA. Has USACE/EPA started any discussions with adjacent property owners to determine if there are recalcitrant owners who could impact schedule due to denial to properties or adjacent properties that are key to performing the work?

RESPONSE: For bidding purposes, assume that all ROEs are in place prior to the start of work.

There are currently no known recalcitrant owners.

58. Is the contractor responsible for obtaining permits, or are we only required to meet the substantive requirements of permits since this is a CERCLA site?

RESPONSE: The contractor is not responsible to obtain permits for this project, but shall be responsible for meeting all substantive regulations and requirements associated with the work.

59. During excavations where existing data or confirmatory data exceeds TSCA levels, is

TSCA sample spacing required for the confirmatory for the initial or step elevations in those areas?

RESPONSE: Please refer to specification Section 31 23 00, Part 1.7.2.

60. Trucks transporting soil to the Plate 5 are expected to be lined with poly bags. Please confirm if these liners can be dumped into the consolidation area.

RESPONSE: Refer to Section 02 81 00 Part 2.2. Haul trucks for RW shall be equipped with engineered cover and containment systems as stated in the referenced section. Truck shall be sealed in such a manner to not allow for any waste (airborne, liquid or solid) to be freed from the confines of the truck during transportation. Standard mesh truck covers will not be accepted.

The use of poly bags is discouraged and will not be disposed in OU4 consolidation area.

61. Can USACE confirm if the excavation limits fall within Town of Stratford ROW. Town permit requirements for excavations require that a contractor licensed with the Town perform the excavations.

RESPONSE: Excavation along roadways/streets will extend beyond the property lines, as delineated on the drawings, and will encroach on town owned property. Contractor shall coordinate with the Town of Stratford for licensing requirements or variances needed.

62. At the OU4 Consolidation Area: A) please confirm that pavement can be disposed of at OU4. B) please confirm that any debris encountered in excavations should be disposed of at OU4.

RESPONSE: Pavement excavated as part of the Seed Task Order shall be sized (less than 1’ in any direction) prior to placing in OU4 landfill. Pavement that is in direct contact with PHC soils shall be disposed of as PHC waste. For bidding purposes, Contractor shall assume that debris encountered in excavation for this contract can be deposited in OU4 landfill.

63. The residential fences at OU6, 326 Ferry Blvd appear to be placed off the residential property and on the RW excavation footprint. Has the USACE designer, USACE, or EPA begun discussions with homeowners regarding the removal of these fences? Who will be responsible for coordinating removal of the fences with homeowners, if not?

RESPONSE: There is one adjacent residential property fence that appears to go beyond the property line. The existing fence will remain in place. This will not affect the RW excavation, but will affect the final planting locations. Plantings will be placed adjacent to (southwest of) this existing fence as a part of the Seed Task Order.

64. Please confirm that the intended unit of measure for Plantings at Wooster Park and 200 Ferry Blvd is square yards, and not per plant.

RESPONSE: Plantings at Wooster Park and 200 Ferry Blvd are in square yards.

65. Specification Section 31 23 00, Part 1.7.2, page 7 is silent on how the copper results affect the determination of RW. Page 7 is also silent on how the copper results affect the determination of areas requiring additional excavation. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: The process for the determination of RW and the areas requiring additional excavation is explained in Section 31 23 00, Part 1.7.2, Page 5. For the purpose of the confirmatory sampling required to determine the need for additional excavation, the copper results do not affect the preliminary determination of RW or the areas that require additional excavation. To expedite the process in these areas, if lead and asbestos are above the RW criteria, it will be assumed that the material is RW and further excavation is required. However, copper analysis will be performed on the samples with the expedited timeframe, along with the lead analysis. If copper is also above the criteria, it will be used to confirm if the material is RW. If copper is not above the criteria, the material will still be assumed to be RW (due to the anticipated presence of PCBs), and will require additional excavation.

66. Offeror respectfully requests a 4-week extension from the current Proposal due date of November 13th to December 11th to digest and respond to all material from the Government’s responses to RFIs given the deadline of November 2nd. A typical request for extension would be two-weeks, but with the Thanksgiving holiday falling within that timeframe, we are requesting 4-weeks to allow Offerors the holiday break.

RESPONSE: Please see Amendment 0005.

67. Would you kindly consider a 2-week extension to the Proposal Due Date? We are still waiting on answers to some of the questions we have asked as of today, and they impact how we proceed on significant elements in our proposal.

RESPONSE: Please see Amendment 0005.

The following have been modified:

PWS

Performance Work Statement For Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

Remedial Services Contract

Raymark Superfund Site Stratford, Connecticut

28 AUGUST 2018

Performance Work Statement For Remediation Action Contract

Raymark Superfund Site Stratford, Connecticut

Scope

The Raymark Industries, Inc. Superfund Site (the “Site”) includes areas that have been contaminated as a result of manufacturing processes from the former Raymark Industries, Inc. facility. The former Raymark Facility, which was located at 75 East Main Street in Stratford, Connecticut, operated from 1919 to 1989. Known as Raybestos- Manhattan, Inc., Raymark manufactured gaskets, clutches and heavy brake friction components for the automotive industry. Raymark generated wastes containing asbestos, lead, copper, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and a variety of solvents, adhesives, and resins as byproducts of its manufacturing operations. This resultant byproduct were available as “free fill” to the Town and residents. The Raymark waste that remains in the town of Stratford presents a threat to human health that needs to be addressed. The conceptual approach is comprehensive in that it addresses all Raymark waste in residential, commercial, and recreational properties.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved one Record of Decision (ROD) that specified the selected remedies for four operable units (OUs) of the Raymark Superfund Project. The specific OUs are OU2 (Groundwater Vapor Intrusion), OU3 (Upper Ferry Creek), OU4 (Raybestos Memorial Ballfield), and OU6 (Additional Properties). Although OU2 is part of the ROD, it is not included in this contract since Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) is responsible for the remedy at OU2.

The selected remedy incorporates the consolidation and capping of approximately 100,000 cubic yards of Raymark waste. Excavated Raymark waste from OUs 3 & 6 will be consolidated at the OU4 Memorial Ballfield and covered with a low-permeability cap.

Sediment and waste soil containing more heavily contaminated material that exceeds certain regulatory limits will be transported to a licensed out-of-town disposal facility.

Based on available data, approximately ten percent (10%) of the estimated volume (+/- 110,000 cubic yards (cy)) of excavated Raymark waste and sediment may exceed the regulatory Principal Hazardous Constituents (PHC) limits. Any Raymark waste that exceeds the PHC contamination threshold will be transported to a licensed out-of-town disposal facility. Refer to Figure 1 Attachment for site locations where Raymark waste is located.

OU3 (Upper Ferry Creek) encompass approximately seven acres, including approximately one acre of wetlands and one acre of open water, and consists primarily of three different areas: the delineated wetlands, the Upper Ferry Creek channel, and all ther soils (mainly bank soils). All of OU3 is located within the 100-year floodplain. OU3 requires excavation of the top two feet of channel sediment from the entire length of

Upper Ferry Creek from the I-95 culvert down to the Broad Street Bridge. Upper Ferry Creek bank soil (above the mean high water line) and adjacent wetland soil containing Raymark waste will be excavated to a depth of four feet. The bottom of each soil excavation will be lined with a geotextile fabric to serve as a warning layer, then backfilled with clean material, followed by site restoration. Based on available data, excavation and consolidation of Raymark waste from OU3 is estimated at 34,850 cy (Sediment = 4,650 cy, Wetlands = 7,600 cy & Streambank = 22,600 cy).

OU4 (Raybestos Memorial Ballfield) will be the consolidation of Raymark waste from OU3 and OU6 and eventually include the construction of a low-permeability cap. The cap will be constructed in a manner that will allow commercial redevelopment of the property while ensuring the continued containment of the underlying contamination.

OU4 has the capacity to receive approximately 100,000 cy of Raymark waste from OU3 and OU6.

OU6 (Additional Properties) is comprised of 22 non-contiguous commercial, recreational, and residential properties where Raymark waste was used to fill low-lying areas. OU6 requires excavation of the top four feet of soil areas containing Raymark waste from each property. The bottom of each soil excavation will be lined with a geotextile fabric to serve as a warning layer, then backfilled with clean material, followed by site restoration. Based on available data, excavation and consolidation of Raymark waste from OU6 is estimated at 71,000 cy.

Raymark waste-contaminated soil containing more heavily contaminated material that exceeds certain regulatory limits will be segregated during excavation and transported to a licensed out-of-town disposal facility. Based on available data, approximately ten percent (10%) of the estimated volume (+/-110,000 cubic yards (cy)) of excavated Raymark waste and sediment may exceed the regulatory Principal Hazardous Constituents (PHC) limits. Any Raymark waste that exceeds the PHC contamination threshold will be transported to an out-of-town licensed disposal facility. Refer to Figure 1 for site locations.

Contract Procurement Objectives and Overview

The contract is an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for various Environmental Remediation Action Services in support of the US Army Corps of Engineers New England District (USACE) at the Raymark Superfund Site, Stratford, Connecticut. The USACE has been retained by EPA through Interagency Agreement Nos. DW-096-95909701-0 (OU3 Upper Ferry Creek), DW-096-95908901-0 (OU4 Memorial Ballfield) and DW-096-95910101-0 (OU6 Additional Properties) to implement the cleanup actions for the Raymark Superfund Site. Project specific task orders will be issued under the base ID/IQ contract. The USACE Contracting Officer (KO) or Project Manager (PM) will provide the Contractor with site-specific information in the USACE's possession upon issuance of each task order. Each task order will define the scope of work for the Contractor. Task orders may include, but will not be limited to, any combination of the following work:

Project Management; Management Plans; Work Plans; Accident Prevention and Site Safety Plan: Health Plans; Sampling and Analysis and Quality Assurance Project Plans; studies with associated reports; multiple phases of field investigations;

optimization of existing remedies; compliance support; data management; data interpretation; hydrological and geochemical studies; project reports; engineering support and/or design; geotechnical studies; geotechnical monitoring; removal action plans, removal action, remedial action plans; remedial action; establishing safety zones and procedures near open cuts; protection of existing environmental resources; water management and treatment; clearing of vegetation; temporary and permanent surface water diversions; installation of horizontal drains and/or lined french drains; dewatering; slope stabilization; excavation and consolidation of Raymark waste, excavation, transportation and off-site disposal of PHC; significant earthwork requiring appropriate erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs); impermeable cap installation; constructing storm-water conveyance & pumping station; installation of mitigation wetlands and passive treatment wetlands; site-wide inspection and maintenance including but not limited to caps, roads, wetlands, and invasive species; operation and maintenance; sediment excavation; stream channel restoration; wetlands restoration; management of investigative derived waste; implementation of institutional controls; preparation of as-built drawings; site closeout/decision documents; project team and public meetings;

public relations and community outreach support; Commercial Lease for Project Informational Center during the duration of this contract; and future project programming and scheduling support.

Work will generally fall under task orders using Performance Work Statements (PWS).

The description of work stated herein provides a general understanding of the Contractor functions to be performed; individual task orders will contain the specific requirements. Technical requirements described herein in no way limit the activities that may be required under the terms of this contract. Exclusive of the program and/or project management functions, the Contractor may utilize sub-contractors or consultants identified in the accepted proposal or subsequently approved by the KO to perform any of the functions required within the specific task orders.

The Contractor shall perform all the necessary services required to successfully meet all performance objectives of this PWS. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations in order to successfully complete all performance objectives of this PWS in a manner that is consistent with any applicable orders and permits and relevant Department of Defense (DOD) and Army policies for the duration of this Task Order. The Contractor shall also use the references listed below (and default to most recent version if different) when preparing the proposal and executing the work:

EPA New England Region 1 – Raymark Industries, Inc. Superfund Site – Record of Decision, Stratford, Connecticut dated September 2016;

Raymark Superfund Site –Final OU3 Feasibility Study Stratford, Connecticut - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study dated June 29, 2016 – Nobis Engineering, Inc.

Raymark Superfund Site –Final OU4 Feasibility Study, Stratford, Connecticut - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study dated June 30, 2016 – Nobis Engineering, Inc.

Raymark Superfund Site –Final OU6 Feasibility Study Addendum, Stratford, Connecticut - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study dated June 28, 2016 – Nobis Engineering, Inc.

Engineer Manual (EM) 1110-1-4007 Safety and Health Aspects of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Remediation Technologies, USACE, 2003.

EM 200-1-3, Requirements for the Preparation of Sampling and Analysis Plans, USACE, 01 Feb. 2001

ER 1110-1-263, Chemical Data Quality Management for Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Remedial Activities, USACE, 30 Apr 1998

EM 200-1-6, Chemical Quality Assurance for HTRW Projects, USACE, 10 Oct.

DOD Quality Systems Manual (QSM), for Environmental Laboratories, Revision

5.0 dated July 2013

Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans (UFP for QAPP), Evaluating, Assessing and Documenting Environmental Data Collection and Program Use, Part 1 and Part 2, Final version 1, March 2005

Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets.

www.epa.gov/fedfac. DoD/EPA/DOE, March 2012

EPA New England Environmental Data Review Program Guidance. Version 4- 22-2013

DoD General Data Validation Guidelines Final Draft, Environmental Data Quality Workgroup, December 2016

National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review.

EPA-540-R-2016-002

National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Inorganic Methods Data Review.

EPA-540-R-2016-001

ER1180-1-6, Construction Quality Management, USACE, 30 Sep 1995 EM 385-1-1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements

Manual (2008) 42 U.S. Code Chapter 103 – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability.

ER 1110-1-8157, Engineering and Design Geotechnical Data Quality

Management for Hazardous Waste Remedial Activities, 2002.

EM 1110-1-1804 Geotechnical Investigations, Engineering and Design, 2001.

EM 1110-1-1802 Geophysical Exploration for Engineering and Environmental

Investigations, 1995.

EM 1110-2-1902, Slope Stability, USACE, 31 October 2003.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Guidance on Systematic

Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G-4). Published by the Office of Environmental Information.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Geology Field Manual, Second Edition, Volumes I and II, 1998, Reprinted 2001.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Earth Manual, Third Edition, Volumes I and II, 1998.

Applicable ASTM Standards

Types of Services Required

This contract includes the following types of environmental services as authorized under the basic contract:

Site Characterization/Investigation Studies and Reports Monitoring and Interim Operations Engineering for Remediation Remedial Action

Contract Type

_X_ Firm-Fixed Price (FFP)

Performance Objectives and Standards for All Task Orders

Performance objectives and standards shall be met for all executed task orders under this IDIQ contract. All future task orders will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP). The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials and equipment necessary to successfully complete all performance objectives identified in this PWS and Table 1, Performance Requirements Summary. Achievement of the performance objectives is successfully attained upon the finalization of appropriate documentation certifying that the documents have been accepted by the USACE. USACE approval of the Performance Standards will be by the KO or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). Table 1 identifies tasks that may be required for all Task Orders. Additional tasks and associated Performance Standards may be added to the table based on the scope of the work to be completed under the individual future Task Orders.

Table 1 – Performance Requirements Summary Performance Objective/Task Performance Standard

Task 1 – General Conditions

Task 1.1 - Project Management/Project Controls

Submit Monthly Status Reports and Vouchers by 5th day of each month in accordance with program requirements and USACE acceptance

Task 1.2 – Prepare & Submit Plans

Table 1 – Performance Requirements Summary Performance Objective/Task Performance Standard

Task 1.2.1 –Project Management Plan in accordance with Paragraph 6.1.2.1.

USACE acceptance of Final Project Management Plan (PMP).

Task 1.2.2 –Construction Work Plan in accordance with Paragraph 6.1.2.2.

USACE approval of Final Construction Work Plan

(CWP).

Task 1.2.3 – Health & Safety Documentation in accordance with Paragraph 6.1.2.3.

USACE approval of Final APP/SSHP

Task 1.2.4 – Quality Control Plan in accordance with Paragraph 6.1.2.4.

USACE approval of Final Quality Control Plan

In the event that there may be multiple milestones and/or deliverables for each of the performance objective tasks, partial payments will be based on the successful completion of milestones. Final decisions regarding the adequacy of milestone and deliverable completion resides with the KO or COR.

Task Order Contract Requirements

The Contractor shall furnish all necessary labor, equipment, materials, and supplies to complete the tasks listed in Table 1 above and defined in the following paragraphs. All work shall be conducted in a safe, secure, cost efficient, and environmentally acceptable manner in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,…