Amendment_W912WJ18R00030009.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 address Requests for Information, including changes to specifications, PWS documents, the bid schedule, and draw ings. The time for receipt of proposals is also extended to 11 December 2018 at 1:00 pm. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 39

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-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

29-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 06-Dec-2018 02:00 PM to 11-Dec-2018 01:00 PM.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been added by full text:

AMEND 0009 SPEC CHANGE

AMENDMENT 0009 OF SOLICITATION

1. NARRATIVE CHANGES TO SPECIFICATIONS

1.1 BIDDING SCHEDULE - Delete the bidding schedule in its entirety and replace with the attached BIDDING SCHEDULE.

1.2 SECTION 01 22 00, MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT – Delete the Measurement and Payment Section in its entirety, and replace it with the attached Measurement and Payment section.

1.3 SECTION 01 32 01, PROJECT SCHEDULE, subpart 2.1.1 Government Default Software – Delete this subpart in its entirety and replace with “The schedule shall be in Gantt format created using MS Project or similar scheduling software.”

1.4 SECTION 01 57 20, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, subpart 1.7.2 Contents – Insert the following paragraph (p.) at the end of subpart 1.7.2:

“p. Include and update an animal/rodent control plan as information becomes available. The plan will cover the movement of animals from OU4 into the abutting properties due to the clearing/grubbing and construction of the landfill at OU4. Include in the plan: methods of control, dates, times, locations, equipment used for control.

Federal, State, Regional and Local pest management record keeping and reporting requirements as well as any additional site specific requirements are the Contractor's responsibility in conformance with DA AR 200-1 Chapter 5--Pest Management, Section 5-4 "Program requirements" for data required to be reported to the Contracting Officer.”

1.5 SECTION 32 31 13, CHAIN LINK FENCES AND GATES, PART 2 – PRODUCTS-

Insert Subpart 2.5 at the end of this PART, with the following:

“2.5 OUTDOOR SOUND CURTAIN

The outdoor sound curtain shall be Model UNC-XT-1 by eNoise Control, or approved equal. See Detail attached at the end of this specification section.”

1.6 SECTION 32 12 16, HOT-MIX ASPHALT (HMA)FOR ROADS, subpart 3.5 TEST SECTION – Delete this section in its entirety.

1.7 SECTION 32 31 13, CHAIN LINK FENCES AND GATES - Insert the attached detail “OUTDOOR SOUND CURTAIN” (which accompanies this amendment), to the end of this specification section.

1.8 SECTION 01 35 26, GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS – Replace this specification section in its entirety with a replacement SECTION 01 35 26, which accompanies this amendment.

1.9 SECTION 01 35 29, HEALTH, SAFETY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES

FOR CONTAMINATED SITES - Replace this specification section in its entirety with a replacement SECTION 01 35 29, which accompanies this amendment.

2. CHANGE TO DRAWINGS

2.1 Drawing D-03 – Add Detail 17 – “PAVEMENT RESTORATION DETAIL (TYP)” to drawing D-03, which accompanies this amendment.

RFI AMEND 0009

1. Section 01 35 29 references two attachments that appear to be missing: (1) Example Certificate Of Worker/Visitor Acknowledgement and (2) Task Hazard and Control Sheets. Please provide. Specifically, we would like to know if 40-hour HazWOPER training is required for site workers conducting non-intrusive activities (e.g., surveying, clearing)?

RESPONSE: Reference to both of these has been deleted from the revised 01 35 29 section.

2. CLIN 17 for Site Restoration at 326 Ferry Boulevard is unlike the other site restoration items. The other restoration items on the contract is broken into mulch, plantings, and paving. On CLIN 17 there will be paving, plantings, grass, and fencing. Should these be broken out with quantities like the other property restoration items?

RESPONSE: See adjusted bid schedules included in Amendment 0006 and Amendment 0009.

3. Spec section 01 35 29, 3.3 requires HAZWOPER for all “workers performing cleanup operations and who will be exposed to contaminants”. A) Will workers be required to have asbestos certifications? B) Are the clearing and grubbing subcontractors required to have HAZWOPER training i.e. are the clearing and grubbing workers considered to be performing cleanup operations and anticipated to be exposed to contaminants?

RESPONSE: A.) No. B). There is potential, during any site work, for workers to encounter hazardous materials. It is at the discretion of the contractor to determine the appropriate level of protectiveness of workers. Offerors should reference OSHA 1910.120 for additional information.

4. The grubbing process will result in root balls and stumps with entrained soils. These entrained soils will not be able to be shaken loose, based on experience. Traditional stump disposal facilities will seek a letter from the Owner that states unequivocally that the stump chips are clean. How should offerors price stump chip disposal, as a contaminated waste product or as clean stump chips? Will USACE or EPA be able to certify that the stump chips are clean?

RESPONSE: Vegetation at ground level and below shall be tub grinded and placed in the proposed stump/root grounds stockpile on OU4. Therefore, the stump chips will not be certified as clean. This material will be incorporated into the cap in subsequent phases of the work.

5. NIOSH has discontinued its offering of NIOSH 582 courses. Will USACE accept equivalency courses with equal training material, documents, instructor qualification, and certification processes?

RESPONSE: There is no specific requirement for NIOSH 582 or equivalent in the solicitation.

It will be up to the contractor to develop the appropriate air monitoring program and determine required certification.

6. Is 40 Hour HAZWOPER training required for clearing and vegetation chipping activities?

RESPONSE: See response to Amendment 0009, RFI #3, Part B.

7. Spec 02 13 00 Section 3.4 Management of Decontamination Materials states that “Contractor shall containerize in 55-gal drums, stored in OU4 laydown area within secondary containment.” Are modular storage tanks with secondary containment allowed in lieu of 55-gal drums for storage of water? Storage of drums/or tanks containing water/residual from other Plates will require manifesting/shipping papers if moved to an interim staging area (OU4). Please clarify if decon water/residual can be stored at each site until offsite disposal.

RESPONSE: The contractor shall limit the decontamination fluid volume to the extent practicable. If a larger container is proposed to be utilized, the decontamination, mobilization, demobilization, rental, labor to setup of said container(s) shall be included in the price. Because the properties are all considered to be part of the Site, materials transferred from to OU4 will require Bills of Lading to track quantities, but not hazardous waste manifests. Decontamination water/residuals may be temporarily stored at each property, as space allows, while excavation is ongoing, but may not be stored after the contractor has removed the decontamination pad from that property.

8. Seed TO Specifications 00 80 00 – Within the specifications, there are several references to Section 00 80 00 SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS, Subpart

COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION AND COMPLETION OF WORK (APR 1984)

FAR 52.211-10. Please provide this section.

REPONSE: The reference to section 00 80 00 was removed from the bid schedule. The period of performance for this task order is set at 8 months from contract award, per the Performance Work Statement.

9. Spec Section 01 11 00, 1.31 indicates the as-builts are existing conditions and post excavation surveys with the latter being used to quantify excavated material volumes.

However, Spec Section 01 71 23, 1.5 indicates the as-builts required are existing conditions and post construction (after backfilling). Please clarify the survey requirements.

RESPONSE: Specification 01 11 00 paragraph 1.31.a requires post-excavation surveys, to the accuracy required by specification 01 71 23 paragraph 1.5.a, and by the requirements specified in 01 71 23 paragraph 1.5.b. Specification 01 71 23 paragraph 1.5.a requires pre-construction existing condition surveys, and post-construction as-built surveys.

10. Would the Corps consider adding a bid item for mobilization and site plans?

RESPONSE: No. Site plans are called out in line item 0001. Site prep line items would include mobilization to each of those sites. Any additional costs shall be included in the listed item most closely associated with the work involved.

11. Section 6.6.3 of PWS table – please clarify if the durations are for the initial submittal or the approved submittal (draft, draft final, and final).

RESPONSE: The schedule provided in the PWS refers to initial submittal.

12. Section 5.1.2.2 of the PWS – First paragraph requires 3 versions, second paragraph requires 4 versions – please clarify.

RESPONSE: The Contractor shall prepare a draft, draft-final and final construction work plan.

Please reference edits to the Seed Task Order PWS included with Amendment 0009.

13. Since NIOSH 582 certification or NIOSH 582 Equivalency Courses are for the collection and analysis of asbestos samples, this implies that the SSHO will be required to perform analysis of samples onsite. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: There is no specific requirement for NIOSH 582 or equivalent in the solicitation.

It will be up to the contractor to develop the appropriate air monitoring program and determine required certification.

14. For the seed task order and for future tasks of similar size and complexity, would the USACE allow dual hatting of key field personnel roles such as the CQM and SSHO?

RESPONSE: No, the CQM and SSHO shall be stand-alone roles.

15. Bid Item 0016, Monitoring Well Decommissioning specifies a total of 4 wells to be abandoned. Please confirm that the list of 25 monitoring wells listed in the specification after Section 01 11 00 under the Final RI (August 1999) are not to be preserved or replaced in kind. It would be helpful if the Seed TO drawings could include identification numbers for wells within the project limits.

RESPONSE: The contractor shall assume that the disposition of the wells identified in the drawings are as stated. If, during the execution of the contract work, the contractor locates utilities, including monitoring wells, the utility shall be protected and brought to the attention of USACE for disposition determination. Additional information regarding existing monitoring wells at the Site is attached to this Amendment, entitled “Amend 0009 – OU4 Monitoring Well Information” and “Amend 0009 OU6 Monitoring Well Information”.

16. On the Binding Rates Table, the cell for the Combined Markup for field office / site work does not aggregate the percentages. Please advise whether offerors should correct this or whether USACE will re-issue the Binding Rates.

RESPONSE: Please find attached to Amendment 0009 a corrected Binding Rate spreadsheet.

17. On sheet number C-13 of the Seed Project Drawings there is mention of a ‘UNC-XT sound curtain to be added to perimeter fencing.’ However, there is no details regarding this sound curtain in the design drawings, and there is no mention of applying a sound curtain or sound barrier in the Seed TO specifications. Please clarify whether the UNC- XT sound curtain is to be added as part of the Seed TO, and, if so, please provide the specifications for this element.

RESPONSE: Refer to the detail attached to Amendment 0009, entitled “Amend 0009 Sound Barrier Detail,” which applies to the Seed Task Order.

18. Section L: Please confirm that for Factor 4: Price, Section 6, Offerors should supply a completed Bid Schedule, followed by a price breakdown, broken down as follows: The labor should be shown with number of labor hours and labor rates for each category (to allow the USACE to verify that it utilizes the rates in Section 5), and that the other sub-elements (material, subs, etc.) can each be shown for each bid item as a lump sum amount (meaning we don’t need to list each individual subcontractor and the corresponding amount, but simply the total for all subcontractors).

RESPONSE: Offerors shall complete and submit the “Seed Task Order Rates” Excel spreadsheet, which will be used as the price breakdown.

19. Section L, Part F, Price states that offerors shall submit a price breakdown of man-hours, wage rates, indirect rates, travel, material, subcontractors, other direct costs and profit. (1) Please confirm that the rates provided in the requested breakdown should be done so by task / activity on the Bid Sheet so that USACE can determine whether the rates were used throughout the Seed Task Order. (2) Are offerors required to provide labor rates down to the craft labor level? (3) Are the labor rates for craft labor binding?

RESPONSE: Offerors shall complete and submit the “Seed Task Order Rates” Excel spreadsheet, which will be used as the price breakdown.

20. Please confirm that PWS Section 6.5 Sampling and Analysis Quality Control Subpart

6.5.1 Analytical Testing, 6.5.2 Sample Data Review/Validation and Reporting, and 6.5.3 Data Management Review applies to environmental testing performed on all soil confirmatory sidewall samples, all off-site clean fill environmental samples and all RW PHC waste characterization samples transported off-site for disposal.

RESPONSE: The information in this section is meant to apply to all sidewall confirmation, clean fill, and offsite waste characterization samples. If the Contractor cannot provide a certified lab to fulfill the TAT requirements for the confirmatory sampling, the Contractor may propose to use a field lab as indicated, or propose alternative certifications. Regarding the data validation (PWS Section 6.5.2), as indicated in the specifications, Tier 1/Stage 2A data validation is sufficient for the clean fill material and sidewall confirmation data. Tier 1/Stage 2A validation is also sufficient for the Government’s purposes for PHC waste characterization. The Contractor shall confirm that the collected data and associated validation will meet the requirements of the disposal facility(ies).

21. Spec section 01 35 29, 3.5 Exposure Monitoring / Air Sampling Program provides requirements for the construction of the barrier wall and roadway for the disposal area which is not part of this contract. What parts of this specification apply to this contract? PID/FID monitoring is not listed in the AECOM Ambient Air Monitoring Plan attachment but listed in the main specification. Is PID/FID monitoring required?

RESPONSE: Specification section 01 35 29 has been revised with Amendment 0009. Please refer to the revised section for requirements.

22. Spec section 01 35 29, 3.5 Exposure Monitoring / Air Sampling Program - AECOM Ambient Air Monitoring Plan specifies that for the purposes of the submittal 7 AMS will be required for the duration of the remediation activities. Please confirm that lab analysis (SVOCs, Dieldrin, PCBs, Dioxin (OU6 only), Metals, and Asbestos) will be required for all the constituents listed for each AMS on a daily basis for the duration of remediation activities. If not, please list the required lab analysis.

RESPONSE: The contractor is responsible for developing the site-specific air monitoring plan which would detail the proposed approach to air monitoring and how it is proposed to implement the plan.

23. Can the demolished pavement be hauled to Plate 5 with the excavated soil or does the Contractor need to find an alternate method of disposal?

RESPONSE: Yes, demolished pavement from OU6 not in direct contact with PHC material can be brought to the OU4 consolidation area.

24. Does the contractor need to apply for a Flood Hazard Area Control Permit for seed project execution?

RESPONSE: No, the contractor does not need to obtain a Flood Hazard Area Control Permit.

25. Do the Flood Hazard Area Control Guidelines apply to the seed project? If yes, please provide the sections of guidelines that are applicable to the seed project.

RESPONSE: The ROD includes a Table of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) in Appendix C. Appendix C-2 specifies location-specific requirements, including those for floodplain work.

26. There seems to be conflicting information between the solicitation and the specifications regarding the software for the project schedule. Please advise whether the seed project should be provided in MS Project or Primavera.

RESPONSE: Specification 01 32 01 paragraph 2.1 SOFTWARE, changed with this amendment, specifies the scheduling software required for the Seed Task Order.

27. Specification 32 93 00 Section 1.6 states plants are guaranteed for one year. Section 3.3.7 of this specification states watering is required to assure survival, and suggests watering is required through the warranty period. Is watering required for 1 year upon USACE acceptance of installation for exterior plants? If so, where should this cost be captured in the bid sheet?

RESPONSE: It is up to the contractor to ensure survival of the plants, in accordance with specification requirements. The Government does not specify watering duration or frequency.

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.

28. Drawings C-11 and C-14 contain the following note “CONTRACTOR WILL BE

RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN UP OF WASTE

MATERIAL DEPOSITED OUTSIDE OF THE EXCAVATION FOOTPRINT”.

However, areas of Raymark waste are shown on both drawings that are not address under the Seed TO. Please clarify the intent of this note.

RESPONSE: This comment was meant to require the Contractor to complete the consolidation or offsite disposal of all excavated materials, and to prohibit the Contractor from leaving excavated material behind for subsequent phases of work.

29. There can be a large cost differential and varying acceptance limits between TSCA waste with an asbestos component, a RCRA waste that exceeds 10x the LDRs with an asbestos component, and a TSCA/RCRA waste that exceeds 10x the LDRs with an asbestos component. Is the unit price provided in response to Bid Item 0015 “Excavation, Transport, and Disposal of PHC Contaminated Soil Off-Site” supposed to cover all three potential options presented in the previous statement?

RESPONSE: Regarding bid item 17 – Excavation, Transport and Disposal of PHC Contaminated Soil Off-Site, Raymark Waste contains asbestos and exceeds 10X the LDRs.

Thus, the pricing for off-site disposal should be for TSCA/RCRA waste that exceeds 10x the LDRs with an asbestos component.

30. If the data tables provided are meant to be used to price the PHC waste for offsite transportation and disposal, please state which sample identifiers should be reviewed for applicability and pricing.

RESPONSE: The OU4 and OU6 figures in the solicitation package include the sample IDs for the sample locations collected on each property. The data tables within these files identified the minimum and maximum concentrations for each of the analytical parameters. The Seed Task Order drawings included the outlined areas of PHC soil to be removed and disposed of off-site.

We have included with this response the OU4 and OU6 RI Report Appendices with the analytical results for the sample locations to determine the contaminant concentrations within the PHC outlined areas.

31. Raymark Waste is defined as Total concentrations of Lead with no TCLP value and a low

PCB concentration of 1 ppm with no upper range identified. Please confirm that because these waste components are not necessarily categorized as hazardous that RW waste can be transported for on-site disposal at OU4 using Non-RCRA or Non-TSCA Hazardous Waste permitted transporters?

RESPONSE: USEPA has determined that the OU areas are all part of the same site; therefore, waste can be transported between the OUs without hazardous waste permits and manifests.

However, all waste will be managed as RCRA, TSCA hazardous, and therefore transporters must be RCRA and TSCA permitted.

32. Please confirm that the CT Sales Tax of 6.35% does not apply to the transportation of

RW material to the OU4 landfill area.

RESPONSE: Raymark waste material being shipped between OUs is within the CERCLA definition of the site; therefore, this waste is being managed on-site and the CT sales tax may not apply. However, the CT Sales Tax may apply to the PHC material, and any additional material that is shipped to an off-site facility. Please also reference contract clause 52.229-3. It is the contractor’s responsibility to pay the correct tax due to a taxing authority.

33. Spec section 01 35 29, 3.5 Exposure Monitoring / Air Sampling Program indicates “standard industrial hygiene practices” may be used to suspend dust monitoring during “significant” precipitation events. Can standard industrial hygiene practices be used to reduce or eliminate the number of AMS locations and/or the daily sampling requirement for the specified integrated constituent-specific sampling COCs at each AMS if calculated dust Action Limits, based on the site-specific AACs, are not exceeded?

RESPONSE: The contractor is responsible for developing the site-specific air monitoring plan which would detail the proposed approach to air monitoring and how it is proposed to implement the plan. If the contractor can support a rationale to reduce or eliminate the number of AMS locations and/or daily integrated sampling at each AMS based on established site dust action limits then USACE will review the proposed rationale and support the approach, if agreed upon.

34. Regarding pay item 0020 “OU4 – Site Restoration”: It is our understanding that soils excavated and transported to the OU4 site will be paid under Item No. 0020 – OU4 - Restoration. This would include placement, compaction, and testing of the interim cap, as well as the placement of daily alternative cover. Can you please confirm this is accurate?

RESPONSE: Bid item 0023 – Site Restoration (changed in Amendment 0006) is only for OU4.

All work and excavated materials under the individual line items (Ferry, Wooster, etc.) are transported and disposed of under that line item. 0023 does include the cap and placement of alternative cover.

35. Regarding pay item 0020 “OU4 – Site Restoration”: Should contractor’s price for Item

No. 0020 OU4 – Site Restoration include placement of the initial excavation volumes and the additional volumes that could be potentially exercised?

RESPONSE: Pay item 0023 – Site Restoration (changed in Amendment 0006) should include only materials excavated within OU4. Any additional volumes of fill exercised under a modification will be handled separately.

36. Regarding pay item 0020 “OU4 – Site Restoration”: We respectfully request that the

Government to consider adding a pay item for restoration of the additional volumes of excavated material, if exercised, to be placed within the interim cap at OU4.

RESPONSE: Pay item 0023 – Site Restoration (changed in Amendment 0006) should include only materials excavated within OU4. Any additional volumes of fill exercised under a modification will be handled separately.

37. Seed TO Specifications 01 35 29: The specification requires two AMS stations at each active remediation excavation area to be positioned at fence line for the 4 OU6 sites and the OU4 excavation area. In some cases the fence line may be more than a hundred feet from the excavation area and may not be representative of concentrations in the actual work zone (such as Plate 2 and 4 sites) to evaluate if the action level has been exceeded.

Please confirm that the perimeter AMS sampling is acceptable for work zone monitoring where drop out due to distances from the fence line may vary. There also does not appear to be any requirements for personnel monitoring. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: The Contractor must establish its own HASP and determine the appropriate personnel monitoring, in addition to the required fence line monitoring.

38. Seed TO PWS Section 5.1.2 and 6.8.3: Aside from the PMP, which clearly states the

FINAL is due within 60 days of award, it is unclear if the other plan FINALs are due within 60 days. The text reads that the plan (for example the CWP) must be submitted for approval within 60 days of award but does not specify which version, suggesting that this may mean the DRAFT could be submitted for review within that period. Please clarify what version of the remaining plans besides the PMP is expected for delivery to USACE within the 60-day period.

RESPONSE: All DRAFT deliverables are to be submitted within 21 days of task order award unless otherwise specified bythe contract. The Final deliverable(s) for approval shall be submitted within 60 days of task order award unless otherwise specified by the contract. Please reference edits to the Seed Task Order PWS included with Amendment 0009.

39. On page 3 the Ambient Air Monitoring Plan Scope, the third bullet under the Data

Management, QA/QC and Reporting Section stipulates that the contractor will develop a public website to post the results of the air monitoring on a daily basis. Is that correct, or can the results be posted on the EPA project website? Development and maintenance of such a website would seem to add unnecessary costs to the project if a website where the data could be posted currently exists. The contractor would just be responsible for formatting issues.

RESPONSE: EPA’s public website has a national standard format which does not allow for site-specific uses, such as the daily updates contemplated here. A standard template will be provided to the selected contractor for data reporting and procedures.

40. On Remedial Design Drawing, Sheet C-15 Restoration Plan – Plate 5, there is a Retention

Basin shown within the Consolidation Area footprint. A note on the Plan states… “Retention Basin to be graded as shown. No waste shall be placed in footprint.” The Retention Basin appears to be graded to collect surface drainage of the Consolidation Area footprint during placement of RW material and after the impermeable cap is placed.

There are no outlets or overflow structures identified from the Retention Basin to handle excess flow. Please confirm that the Retention Basin is to be lined with impermeable cap material after fill placement in the Consolidation Area has been completed.

RESPONSE: No consolidation material shall be placed within the limit of the retention basin.

Consolidation area poly sheeting shall be terminated 2’ towards the inner portion of the retention pond to allow for stormwater percolation. When the retention pond banks are crested, stormwater will extend over the consolidation area cover as sheet flow. Refer to Detail 13 on Sheet D-03.

41. According to Amendment 06 (dated 11/15), the submittal instructions are changed to CD format; however, the number of CDs or format is not clearly identified. Please clarify the number of copies of CDs and whether the Corps desires each volume to be copied on a separate CD or both volumes on one (1) CD.

RESPONSE: Each volume shall be submitted on a separate CD/DVD. Only one copy of each volume is required.

42. The PWS indicates that the contractor shall perform Tier II data validation on 90% of the samples collected and Tier III data validation on 10% of the samples collected. The specification indicates that data will be validated to Tier 1/Stage 2A modified levels.

Please confirm which is the correct requirement.

RESPONSE: Please validate to the Tier1/Stage 2A modified levels per the specification.

43. The solicitation states Tier II data validation on 90% of the data and Tier III data validation on 10% of the data using EPA Data Validation Functional Guidelines 2016. The SEED TO Specs state that borrow material analyses will be done in accordance with CT RCPs and that confirmation sample data will be validated to Tier I/Stage 2A data validation using EPA NE 2013 and USEPA 2017 National Functional Guidelines. Please confirm that a Staged validation process (versus a Tiered process) is appropriate and that a Stage 2A validation is sufficient for all borrow material, soil confirmation, and air monitoring sampling data.

RESPONSE: Please validate to the Tier1/Stage 2A modified levels per the specification.

44. In the Measurement and Payment section of the Specification under OU4 letter r. it states that clearing and grubbing should be paid for under bid item 0016; however, bid item 0016 is “Monitoring Well Decommissioning”. Please confirm that clearing and grubbing for OU4 should be carried under bid item 0018, “Site Prep”.

RESPONSE: Clearing and grubbing should be included under Bid Item 21, Site Prep, and not under Item 18, Monitoring Well Decommissioning. Please reference changed Measurement and Payment Section with Amendment 0009.

45. Spec 32 12 16, Section 3.5.1, specifies the testing of four core samples from the pavement mat and 4 additional core samples from the joint. Limited pavement restoration is required at 200 Ferry Blvd. and behind 326 Ferry Blvd. Please confirm that 8 cores are required even with the limited pavement quantities shown. Can in-place density testing be used in lieu of the core sampling required?

RESPONSE: The requirement for core sampling has been removed. The density requirements as stated will stand, based upon the CT DOT standard referenced in the specifications, which include in-place density testing with a nuclear gauge.

46. PWS, Key Personnel: Requirements for additional training and certifications for the SSHO contain different requirements in the PWS and Specification 01 35 26. For example, the PWS requires “Trained in First Aid and CPR by a recognized organization such as the American Red Cross” and specification requires “OSHA 30-hour

Construction Safety Course”. Please provide a comprehensive list of training and certification for SSHO.

RESPONSE: The SSHO shall meet the qualifications as stated in the specifications and updated

PWS.

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, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Record of Decision signed in September 2016, and EPA green and sustainability principles. Work shall be completed correctly in a professional, workmanlike manner, in accordance with approved work plans. Work is to be performed commensurate with the level of effort and quality intended, with appropriately qualified quality control (QC) representation (as part of the contractors overall QC Program) controlling the work.

Contractor Quality Control (CQC) is the means by which the Contractor ensures that the work, to include that of subcontractors and suppliers, complies with the requirements of the contract. The control shall be adequate to cover all operations, including both on-site and off-site activities. The Contractor is responsible for quality control and shall establish and maintain an effective quality control system. The quality control system shall consist of plans, procedures, and organization necessary to produce an end product that complies with governing regulations and contract task order requirements.

The Contractor's quality control program shall include inspections and tests as described in the task orders.

The IDIQ contract duration is five (5) years.

Task 1 – General Conditions

Task 1.1 – Project Management/Project Controls

This task provides for oversight of the below activities to include the Program Manager, Project Manager, Subcontracts Manager, Project Controls, Cost Scheduler, and Administrative staff when engaged in representative non-site specific activities.

Cost and schedule reporting and tracking.

Sub-contractor cost and schedule…