W912WJ22R0011 Amendment 0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This Amendment is necessary to provide the Site Visit Sign in sheet and to provide responses to Requests for Information (RFIs). All other aspects remain unchanged

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Jun-2022

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 W912WJ22R0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Apr-2022

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

02-Jun-2022

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:

W912WJ22R0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

RFIS AMENDMENT 0002

1. Reviewing boring logs and well construction diagrams are necessary for developing the technical approach for the Seed Task Order. After reviewing the reports in the administrative record at the North Kingston Library, several important boing logs and well construction diagrams have not been located. Please provide guidance to obtaining the appropriate document(s) and links to them (which may have boring logs and well construction details) in the sequence SES- 01 through SES -11 and EA-117 though EA-

121. At each location there may be multiple wells.

Response: The boring logs and well construction diagrams are provided with this Amendment.

2. Page 63 of the solicitation notes proposal formatting requirements, including 8.5” width and 11” height page size. Can the solicitation to be amended to allow for 11” x 17” page size?

Response: See response to Amendment 0001, RFI 5.

3. The schedule required to be provided with the proposal may take up to several pages, including if on 11 x 17” page size (see Question 1) to show the detail requested for each of the tasks. Can the proposal be amended to exclude the proposed project schedule from the page count?

Response: No. Schedules will be included in page count. 11x17 pages will count as 2-pages.

4. Please provide the seven documents listed in the bulleted portion of Section 1 of the

Performance Work Statement (page 81 of the solicitation).

Response: The requested documents were provided with Amendment 0001.

5. Page 75 of the solicitation notes “The Offeror shall utilize the labor categories/job titles provided in the Binding Rate Table attached to the solicitation.” The labor categories/job title list in the Binding Rate Table is a subset of the labor categories/job titles provided in the labor tab of the “Bid Schedule Seed Task Order” file. Please confirm if the longer list provided in the Bid Schedule Seed Task Order ‘labor’ tab is to be used in the Binding Rate Table or vice versa.

Response: Revised Binding Rate Table and Bid Schedule Seed Task Order are provided with this Amendment.

6. The SF1442 indicates that an original and one copy shall be submitted. Page 62 indicates that “Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service….” Please indicate which is correct.

Response: All submissions are to be submitted in accordance with the directions on Pg. 62 of the solicitation.

7. Given the page constraints of 40 pages for the entire Volume I: Technical Information, please allow the following: 11-point font with 6-point line separation. Exclusion of title pages, cover letters, Table of Contents pages, tables, illustrations, and appendices from the 40-Page Limit.

Response: The requirements remain unchanged.

8. Retainage is noted to be required in the monthly status report (pdf page 89 of 179). Please advise if retainage will be held on this contract and if so the retainage amount and any other contractual requirements pertaining to retainage.

Response: Retainage may be withheld on this contract and amount is up to the PM discretion which is generally =/<10%.

9. Can the SSHO or the Site Supervisor also serve as the Quality Control Officer?

Response: Yes, the SSHO or the Site Supervisor can also serve as the Quality Control Officer.

10. Should the contractor provide additional resumes to supplement the chemist resume requested, such as the proposed Project Manager, ISTR Subject Matter Expert, and Senior Geologist/Hydrogeologist?

Response: Additional resumes are not required. Providing them as part of the proposal is at the Offeror’s discretion.

11. If resumes are to be included, may they be omitted from the page count?

Response: Resumes will be included toward the page count.

12. The Submission Requirements section (PDF Page 69) states: “Resources required to perform each task (such as personnel, Team Members, equipment) should be identified.”

Related, reference PDF Page 18, Section 7.6 Quality Control Testing, where the following is stated: “NOTE: Each FUDS contractor team at a minimum should consist of the following team members: a project chemist, a geologist or hydrogeologist and a risk assessor.” This is repeated on PDF page 111, Section 9.4 Quality Control Testing. Also, in Section 7.11 Expertise and Related Personnel (PDF page 24) indicates that offerors shall determine the necessary personnel to execute this PWS. This is repeated at Section

9.15 Expertise and Related Personnel (PDF page 120). We presume that the prevailing instruction is that offerors shall determine the necessary personnel, and that the government is not requesting resumes be included in Factor 1. If this is incorrect, please clarify the requirements for offerors regarding personnel, which resumes to include (if any) and the evaluation factors for personnel proposed to execute the PWS.

Response: It is the Offeror’s responsibility to determine and identify the necessary personnel required to complete the efforts in the solicitation. Resumes are not required.

13. To allow for time to revise our proposal based on the documents provided in Amendment 1, we would like to respectfully request a two-week extension.

Response: The due date is not anticipated to be adjusted at this time.

14. Can any additional information be provided regarding existing surface water flows and drainage systems and any stormwater calculations applicable to the site?

Response: A general drainage system plan prepared by property owner has been provided as a part of Amendment 0002. Beyond what is discussed in the documents already provided, additionally surface water flows and stormwater calculations have not been evaluated.

15. The Final PR-58 Design Analysis Report dated 12/28/21 states that (on page 14) “the vertical extent of bedrock groundwater impacts greater than 70 mg/L to the west-northwest of PDI- 102R4 is uncertain and represents a data gap. In addition, the horizontal extent of source material in soil and bedrock groundwater has not been fully delineated and also represents a data gap.”

In addition, the Final PR-58 Pre-Design Investigation Report, dated 8/25/21 recommends the installation of additional monitor wells in both bedrock and overburden in response to those data gaps (Figure 13).

For the proposal, are you requesting that we price out the installation of those recommended monitor wells and subsequent sampling of those noted on Figure 13? In other words, is the scope of work defined by Figure 13 for the pre-remedial site investigation to delineate the CoCs in the overburden and bedrock for which it is notably undefined and therefore, should be the basis of remedial design/operation cost estimate?

Response: One objective of this solicitation is to confirm extents of release source area. Figure 13 of the Pre-design Investigation Report (Appendix A of DAR) depicts our current (and presumed) understanding of the source area and the proposed wells are just proposed. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide a plan and price to confirm source area extents as part of the Seed Task Order of this solicitation.

16. Please provide clarification on the scope of the Task 4.0 Pre-Remediation Investigation in Section 6.2 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The PWS refers to “the contractor shall specifically address data gaps described in the August 2021 PDI Report, December 2021 VE Report and December 2021 DAR”. Section 7.0 of the August 2021 PDI report (pages 66 and 67) specifies the installation of 12 wells, which are shown on Figure 13 of the report. Many of these wells area not in the Phase 1 thermal treatment zone. Is the drilling and installation of all these wells (which may be used for future ISTR monitoring) part of the seed project for this Solicitation?

Response: See response to Amendment 0002, RFI 15.

17. Would the government consider excluding the schedule and the Table of Contents from the forty-page maximum in Volume 1?

Response: No, the page count requirements will remain as directed in the solicitation.

18. In PWS Section 6.1.3, bullet points located towards the end of the section indicate that the contactor should document retainage refunded and retainage withheld. A retainage percentage amount is not indicated in the PWS. Is there a retainage requirement that needs to be incorporated into the milestone payment schedule for the seed project and subsequent task orders?

Response: See response to Amendment 0002, RFI 8.

19. Can USACE provide a detailed map showing all utilities in the vicinity?

Response: The Government does not have a map showing utilities.

20. Can specifications be provided about any existing well installations within the TTZ?

Response: See response to Amendment 0002, RFI 1.

21. Will there be any restrictions imposed for weekend work? If so, please describe.

Response: We are not anticipating restrictions on weekend work. However, coordination with the property owner for weekend work will likely be a requirement.

22. Are there are noise restrictions? If so, what is the acceptable decibel limit at the property boundary and at what times?

Response: The Government is not aware of noise restrictions.

23. Are there any restrictions preventing the general public from accessing the wellfield?

Response: Currently there is a lockable chain-link fence encompassing the majority of the source area and TTZ. This is the only site security currently being used. The onus is on the awardee to determine and provide required site security.

24. Can the discharge permits from any previous air and water treatment systems be provided to offerors?

Response: There have not been any previous permits.

25. Can specifications, depths of installations, and or materials of construction be provided for the existing wells in the TTZ? Can these be abandoned in place? In particular, we request details on SES wells in TTZ 1 area and EA well clusters 118 and 119.

Response: See response to Amendment 0002, RFI 1.

26. Is there an office trailer requirement for USACE? If so, has the location on the site been identified?

Response: There is not an office trailer requirement.

27. Is there parking and storage areas identified for workers?

Response: No.

28. Does any existing treatment system/equipment/infrastructure on site need to be removed?

Response: There are currently several pieces of equipment on-site. This equipment will be removed by the Government current AE prior to mobilization to the site.

29. What site water supply and quality are available? How close to the equipment area is this supply?

Response: Pg. 73 of the DAR identifies the closest potable water supply to be a water main in Babcock Road. Additional information on water supply is provided on Pg. 86 of DAR.

30. How close to the equipment area is the discharge point?

Response: Discharge point has yet to be identified.

31. Are there any fencing requirements?

Response: There is no fencing requirement.

32. Is there a noise abatement requirement? Is there a dBA level that needs to be adhered to?

Response: There is currently no noise abatement for this project.

33. What is the space available for contaminated soil storage onsite?

Response: Contaminate storage area has yet to be identified.

34. Abandonment – what are the abandonment requirements for all the types of wells post thermal treatment?

Response: All site wells must be abandoned in accordance with the State of Rhode Island Groundwater Quality Rules, specifically –Appendix 1, Sections 3, 5, 6, 7and 8 Dated March 2005.

35. Do features such as the electrical infrastructure and vapor cap require abandonment?

Response: Yes.

36. What kinds of warning signs are required? What languages need to be included? What spacing is required?

Response: One sign is required which will be provided by the Government.

37. Is it reasonable to assume that drilling can be conducted in Level D PPE based on past operations?

Response: Yes, that is a reasonable assumption. However, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to determine their own safety measures.

38. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics “For the year ended March 2022, prices for final demand goods increased 15.7 percent, prices for final demand services increased 8.7 percent, and prices for final demand construction increased 16.7 percent. All of these price increases were the largest since data were first calculated in November 2010” (Reference: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/producer-prices-for-final-demand-up-11-2-percent-for-the-year-ended-march-2022.htm). These rapid price increases affect much of the materials and supplies on this project. Stainless steel and electrical power are significant cost/risk drivers for this project and the cost uncertainty will lead to an unreasonable amount of risk to Contractors, which would result in the need to carry a large contingency on these items. We request the government considers adding the following FAR clauses to Section K of the Solicitation:

a. FAR 16.203 Fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment and/or

b. FAR 52.216-3 Economic Price Adjustment-Semistandard Supplies to the task order specific clauses included in this solicitation

Response: The Government will not be including clauses pertaining to Economic Price- Adjustment. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to price according to the market conditions and risks they identify.

SITE VISIT ATTENDEE LIST

Contractor Name Firm Chris Adams Nobis Engineering Adam Ray Nobis Engineering Ron Mack EA Eng.

Paul Hunt ECC Shouvik Gangopadhyay ECC Lauren Soos TRS Group Rick Wice Batelle Robert Poulin TRS Group Larry Kraft SCE Rebekah Manger Matrix Karen Ashton Matrix Brent Winder Mc² Josh Miller Oneida-SRS Gorm Heron TRS Scott Frost Terra Therm

(End of Summary of Changes)