Amendment_W912WJ18R00030007.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 above referenced solicitation is hereby amended to address Requests for Information. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-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 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

16-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:

W912WJ18R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been added by full text:

AMEND 0007 SPEC CHANGE

AMENDMENT 0007 NARRATIVE CHANGES TO THE SPECIFICATIONS

1. SECTION 31 11 00 CLEARING AND GRUBBING, Subpart 3.3.1 Saleable Timber/Nonsaleable Materials - delete the first sentence and replace with the following: “The proposed stump/root grounds stockpile on OU4 is for all sites within the Seed Task Order. All vegetation shall be cut as close to ground level as possible. All vegetative waste above ground level shall not be placed in direct contact with the site soils and shall be disposed of offsite as non-hazardous vegetation.

Vegetation at ground level and below shall be tub grinded and placed in the proposed stump/root grounds stockpile on OU4. This material will be incorporated into the cap in subsequent phases of the work.”

2. SECTION 01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS,

Subpart 3.7.11 Storm Water Pollution Prevention – in the third line replace the word “fence” with the word “sock.”

3. SECTION 01 57 20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Subpart 3.2.4 Erosion and Sediment Controls – in the third to last line replace the word “fences” with the word “socks.”

4. SECTION 01 57 23 TEMPORARY STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL, Subpart

1.4.2 Structural Practices – in the third to last line delete the words “silt fences.”

5. SECTION 01 57 23 TEMPORARY STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL, Subpart

3.4.1 Silt Fence Maintenance – Remove this line in its entirety.

6. SECTION 01 45 00 QUALITY CONTROL, subpart 3.4.2 CQC System Manager, second sentence – Replace the second sentence in its entirety with the following:

“The minimum qualifications of the CQC System Manager shall include:

a. A graduate engineer or a graduate of construction management, with a minimum of 4 years environmental engineering experience; or an experienced construction person with a minimum of 8 years experience in related work.

b. The CQC System Manager shall have 9 semester hours, 12 continuing education units (or combination thereof) education in an area relevant to HTRW remediation; and two years experience in specialized areas, e.g., Remedial Investigation, Remedial Design & Remedial Action.

c. Working knowledge of applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and guidance.

d. Formal education and training in field sampling at HTRW sites.”

RFI AMEND 0007

1. Bidding schedule does not include Mobilization or Demobilization. Please describe where bidders should define these costs.

RESPONSE: No demobilization costs should be included for this task order. Facilities, utilities, and laydown/storage areas will not need to be removed after the Seed Task Order is complete. It is anticipated that these items may remain as part of future task orders, until project is complete.

All other costs for items of work, including mobilization, which are not specifically mentioned in a particular Bidding Schedule job or unit price payment item, shall be included in the listed item most closely associated with the work involved.

2. Should we assume demobilization costs for the site trailers (currently sited at OU4 in the bid documents) or assume that they will remain in place as the field office for the remainder of the OU remediation (OU3 and the remainder of the OU6 properties)?

RESPONSE: No demobilization costs should be included for this task order.

3. Please describe the restoration and demobilization expectations for OU4, considering the area will likely be used for other operations beyond the Seeding TO. Identify whether bidders should assume that all facilities, utilities, and laydown/storage areas will be removed, or if some aspects will remain for future TOs.

RESPONSE: No demobilization costs should be included for this task order. Facilities, utilities, and laydown/storage areas will not need to be removed after the Seed Task Order is complete. It is anticipated that these items may remain as part of future task orders, until project is complete.

4. Temporary Erosion Control Measures does not include silt fence as an adequate control in the technical specifications. However, the project drawings identify erosion control placement as –SF–. Is silt fence an acceptable BMP for controlling stormwater in these locations?

RESPONSE: “-SF-“ is a CAD linetype and doesn’t indicate silt fence. The “-SF-“ linetype refers to erosion controls, which is shown in Detail 1 on Drawing D-01.

5. Sheet C-13 shows a proposed stump/root grounds stockpile area at OU-4. Is this intended to be the stockpile area for stumps and root grounds from the OU-6 sites as well? The specs (31 11 00 paragraph 3.3.1) state that all clearing and grubbing waste must be disposed off site. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: Please see the specification change included in Amendment 0007.

6. The Raymark Seed TO Specifications (Section 01 45 00, paragraph 3.2.1.a) indicate that the CQCSM should report to the Site Superintendent. However, in our experience, USACE typically requires that the CQCSM report to the PM. Please confirm that the CQCSM should report to the PM versus the superintendent.

RESPONSE: The CQCSM should report to the Site Superintendent as indicated in specifications.

7. Please clarify if the entire specification 32 12 16 HOT-MIX ASPHALT (HMA) FOR

ROADS is applicable to the seed project. There are no roads being paved with hot-mix asphalt in the Seed Project. There are also many requirements, both from a testing and quality control perspective, that may not be applicable to paving of parking lots, such as placing and sampling test sections, off-site analysis, etc.

RESPONSE: Specification 32 12 16 is applicable to pavement work for the Seed Project.

8. PWS, Key Personnel: Requirements years of experience for CQC System Manager are different in the PWS and Specification. The PWS requires “graduate engineer or a graduate of construction management, with a minimum of 4 years environmental engineering experience; or an experienced construction person with a minimum of 8 years’ experience in related work.” and “two years’ experience in specialized areas, e.g., Remedial Investigation, Remedial Design & Remedial Action”, but the specification requires “construction person with a minimum of five years in related work”. Please clarify the required years of experience for the CQC System Manager.

RESPONSE: The CQC System Manager shall meet the requirements as stated in the PWS. The specifications are updated accordingly.

9. Please specify the analytical methods, laboratory turnaround times, quality control requirements, and validation requirement for the integrated constituent-specific daily ambient air monitoring samples.

RESPONSE: The Contractor shall consult an air monitoring professional to support preparation of an air monitoring plan, to be approved by USACE, which will define the requirements.

10. Should stumps from clearing efforts at OU6 be transported to OU4 for placement in the stump stockpile location shown on the Drawings?

11. Drawing C-13 depicts silt fence installation occurring outside of the clearing limits. This means the silt fence would be installed through uncleared areas. Please confirm.

RESPONSE: Erosion control features shall be installed using methods which limit impacts, to the extent feasible. Offerors shall assume minimal clearing (5’ maximum width) to install erosion control features, if needed.

12. Under Specification Section 01 22 00 Measure and Payment, 1.4 Bidding Schedule – Payment Items, the specification states “all costs for items of work, which are not specifically mentioned to be included in a particular Bidding Schedule job or unit price payment item, shall be included in the listed item most closely associated with the work involved.” This makes sense for plans, equipment, materials and labor, but it is unclear if community outreach activities should be included in the Seed Task Order bid schedule. Can USACE clarify as to whether the contractor shall include community outreach activities and provide a scope for bidding purposes?

RESPONSE: Community outreach will be primarily handled by USACE and EPA. The selected contractor will be expected to attend or provide material for monthly community meetings to discuss project plans and progress. These costs shall be included in the bidding schedule item that is most closely associated with the work involved.

13. Please confirm that we do not need to supply subcontractor and material quotes.

RESPONSE: This is confirmed.

14. Please clarify whether polyethylene truck liners are required for transport of RW soil from OU6 locations to OU4? If so, please provide specified number of layers, type and thickness.

RESPONSE: Polyethylene truck liners are not expected to be used for the transportation of Raymark waste. Please refer to Part 2.2 and 3.1 of Specification 02 81 00. Engineered controls on trucks are to be used to ensure no material (solid/liquid/dust) is able to discharge during transport.

15. Please clarify whether RW soil from OU6 excavations requires additional waste characterization prior to transport to, and placement in, OU4 Consolidation Area? If yes, please specify analytical requirements, frequency and which bid item these costs should be included with.

RESPONSE: The excavated OU6 waste being consolidated at OU4 does not require further characterization prior to its transport and consolidation at OU4.

16. Spec section 01 35 29, 3.5 Exposure Monitoring / Air Sampling Program specifics 2 downwind perimeter air monitoring stations (AMS) are required, however the AECOM Ambient Air Monitoring Plan attachment indicates 4 downwind AMS are required at OU 4 and 1 downwind AMS are required at OU 6 properties. Which spec section is correct?

RESPONSE: The number of AMS required for the Seed project is as specified in the AECOM Ambient Air Monitoring Plan. The numbers indicated in specification section 01 35 29, paragraph 3.5 relate only to the fixed samplers in the OU4 area.

17. Spec section 01 35 29, 3.5 Exposure Monitoring / Air Sampling Program - AECOM Ambient Air Monitoring Plan specifies the proposal shall identify additional costs associated with adding additional fence line AMS. There is no bid schedule item for this. How will these costs be known if the additional fence line AMS systems if it is not a discrete bid item?

RESPONSE: All costs for items of work, which are not specifically mentioned to be included in a particular Bidding Schedule job or unit price payment item, shall be included in the listed item most closely associated with the work involved.

18. Spec section 01 35 29, 3.5 Exposure Monitoring / Air Sampling Program indicates perimeter air monitoring is required during activities that have the potential to disturb soils, including the “placement of materials.” Please confirm this reference only applies to the placement of RW at OU4 and not of the placement of clean backfill materials or during site restoration activities at all OU4 and OU6 locations.

RESPONSE: Perimeter air monitoring is required for all activities that have the potential to generate particulates during the project. Thus, perimeter air monitoring is required during the placement of RW at OU4, and during the placement of clean fill materials at OU4 and OU6 locations during site restoration.

19. Are liners required in the trucks that will carry Raymark Waste from the OU 6 sites to the Consolidation Area for disposal?

RESPONSE: Polyethylene truck liners are not expected to be used for the transportation of Raymark waste. Please refer to Part 2.2 and 3.1 of Specification 02 81 00. Engineered controls

20. Specification 31 11 00 Section 3.2.3 states that stumps and root mass larger than 2 inches shall be cleared and grubbed from the excavation areas to a depth of 18 inches. We also recognize that there is a location at OU4 designated for tree stump and root mass storage (Drawing C-13). Are roots/stumps from OU6 properties to be placed in the OU4 designated area? How is the contractor to handle the stump and root mass collected at the storage area at OU4 and what is the final destination of the material?

21. Specification 01 45 00 Section 3.2.1 states the CQC System Manager reports to the “project superintendent”. The CQC System Manager needs to work closely with the Site Superintendent, but the QC program should be independent from field operations. Please clarify the reporting structure for the CQC System Manager.

RESPONSE: As stated in Specification 01 45 00 Section 3.2.1, the CQC System Manager should report to the project superintendent.

22. Should offerors include pricing to double poly line burrito wrap asbestos impacted soil when transporting to OU4 area, as is common industry practice? Is this in addition to the specified tailgates and tarps for each truck? Or does the requirement to use the specified tarps and tailgates take the play of the double poly burrito style liners?

RESPONSE: Polyethylene truck liners are not expected to be used for the transportation of Raymark waste. Please refer to Part 2.2 and 3.1 of Specification 02 81 00. Engineered controls

23. Is the asbestos component of Raymark Waste and PHC Waste considered friable or non-friable?

RESPONSE: The asbestos component should be considered friable.

24. Please confirm that stumps from clearing activities are required to be stockpiled in the designated area at OU4.

25. Please provide any requirements (covering / stockpiling) for the stump stockpile at the conclusion of this task order, as this area is outside of the consolidation area that receives a temporary cap.

26. Regarding ARMDEC, we were notified when trying to upload for another federal project that the site is down indefinitely. The site states that, “at this point, we are uncertain if the site will be reinstated.” Can you clarify how the proposal should be submitted since it originally required upload with AMRDEC?

RESPONSE: Please see Amendment 0006, which changed the proposal submission requirements.

27. Section M for Factor 1, Team experience, of the RFP provides a clear list of evaluation criteria for projects. Are team experience examples from the Prime contractor more heavily weighed than those from subcontractors? What prevents a large business subcontractor from providing the majority of the experience examples?

RESPONSE: Please see the evaluation criteria in Section M, Factor 1. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the information provided.

28. Administrative closure for cost-based contracts may take several years to achieve. Given that, for Factor 1, Team Experience, would a project description pertaining to an IDIQ TO that is technically complete (all technical aspects of the work have been completed) but not administratively closed out be considered compliant with the RFP requirements?

RESPONSE: Yes.

29. Administrative closure for cost-based contracts may take several years to achieve. Given that, for Factor 1, Team Experience, would a project description pertaining to an IDIQ TO that is substantially complete but not administratively closed out be considered compliant with the RFP requirements? If so, how does USACE define substantially complete.

RESPONSE: The work on a submitted project has to be accepted but the Task Order does not need to be closed out. “Substantially complete” projects are not acceptable.

30. RFP Reference: Section L: “Key work functions: contaminated soil excavation;

transportation and consolidation of waste material at OU #4; transportation and off-site disposal of PHC waste/contaminated soil; installation of a low-permeability cap; and soil confirmation sampling and air monitoring.” In the submitted project descriptions, do Prime offerors have to demonstrate experience performing a minimum number of key work functions to be considered qualified to perform Raymark SOW elements? Please clarify, as Prime offerors may opt to provide a project description addressing only one key work function while relying (disproportionately) on named Team Members to perform all other key work function activities.

31. Will USACE evaluate a Prime offeror’s project descriptions more favorably if they feature work under a contract substantially greater than $5M? That is, will a Prime offeror receive higher evaluation ratings if project descriptions reflect the capability to execute contracts comparable in size to the $99M Raymark SATOC?

32. Factor 1 – Experience, a project where the base period and an option period is 100% complete, even though there may be a potential that other option periods may be awarded? For purpose of this Raymark proposal , we would only reference the scope and terms of the work 100% completed.

RESPONSE: Yes, that is considered a completed project.

33. If a prime is using a subcontractor to provide the craft labor and that labor will be executing the key work functions, are they required to submit a project example and PPQ so that USACE is able to vet and evaluate the labor force’s capability to perform?

RESPONSE: Yes, they have to provide a project example. Please refer to Section L and M, Factor 1.

34. Under B., Factor 1 Submission Requirements, the RFP states "Projects provided must be completed within the past seven (7) years, as of the issue date of this RFP, to be considered recent. A project is defined as work performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole should not be submitted as a project; rather, Offerors should submit the work performed under a task order as a project." How does USACE define "completed" projects?

RESPONSE: Please see responses to Amendment 0007, RFIs #28, #28, and #32.

35. Under B., Factor 1 Submission Requirements, the RFP states "Projects provided must be completed within the past seven (7) years, as of the issue date of this RFP, to be considered recent. A project is defined as work performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole should not be submitted as a project; rather, Offerors should submit the work performed under a task order as a project." Are projects that are substantially complete but have long-term maintenance or warranty period considered complete during those periods for purposes of the RFP?

RESPONSE: Please see responses to Amendment 0007, RFIs #28, #28, and #32.

36. With the Bid Due Date extended to November 29, 2018, please clarify the last day for submitting questions.

RESPONSE: No new date for submission of questions is established.

37. Many answers refer to the response to Amendment 0006, #18. The response to #18 also states “Please see response to Amendment 0006, #18.” Are all of those referencing #17 instead?

RESPONSE: Yes.

(End of Summary of Changes)