W912WJ22R0011 Amendment 0004.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 respond to Requests for Information, provide a revised binding rates spreadsheet, provide revised Seed Task Order PWS, and provide revised Attachment G. All other aspects remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-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

16-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 0004

1. Is the objective of the PRI to delineate the source zone based on ROD-defined soil and groundwater concentrations (i.e., 10,000 ug/kg in soil and 70,000 ug/L in groundwater) or Design Analysis Report-defined soil and groundwater concentrations (i.e., 2,000 ug/kg in soil and 20,000 ug/L in groundwater)?

Response: The objective of the PRI is to develop a high degree of confidence that the treatment volume contains all the residual DNAPL that acts as a continuing source of contamination to the groundwater above the specified depth into bedrock. The concentrations in the DD (10,000 ug/kg in soil and 70,000 ug/L in groundwater) were assumed to provide that assurance. However, if sample locations are very far apart, concentrations above 2,000 ug/kg in soil and 20,000 ug/L in groundwater in the outermost boring locations reduce the degree of confidence that all the source material will be treated. The existing delineation used these lower values because of data is relatively sparse and the Army wanted to ensure that the remediation design did not miss significant source material.

2. Please provide any existing stormwater management plans available for the site or adjoining properties.

Response: See response to Amendment 0002, RFI 14.

3. Attachment F of the PWS provides a minimum time at temperature (110 days) and temperature performance criteria (95% of sensors at target temperature with no sensor less than 95). Do these requirements still apply to the 100C target temperature specified in Section 6.6.2 of the PWS?

Response: Yes, Offerors need to adhere to the requirements stated in the Solicitation and PWS. However, after award, the awardee could submit an alternative via a proposal in accordance with the Value Engineering Clause.

4. Please confirm what the soil and groundwater goals are for the overburden.

Response: Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) and Remedial Goals (RGs) for FUDS soil and groundwater over-burden are provided in the final Decision Document, dated June 2019. Discussion on FUDS RAO's begin on page 33.

5. Please confirm what the bedrock groundwater cleanup standards are.

Response: Bedrock groundwater cleanup standards are provided in the final Decision Document, dated June 2019.

6. Please confirm that there are no groundwater cleanup standards for the overburden and no soil or crushed rock cleanup standards for the bedrock.

Response: There are RAO's for FUDS over-burden groundwater. See response to Amendment 0004, RFI 4.

There are no standards for rock matrix.

7. Please clarify the vapor treatment removal/destruction efficiency requirement. Stated as 90% in specification section 3.7.4 and 95% elsewhere.

Response: Revised Specification Section 3.7.4 is provided with this Amendment.

8. Based on Appendix G of the DAR, it is suggested by National Grid that there is enough service for a 2.5MW load without any negative effects on the local grid service. Are preliminary results from the power study available to provide additional insight into the available power supply at Babcock Road? If no preliminary results are available and a supplemental power supply by portable generators could be required (as specified in the PWS), please specify the supplemental load requirement that would be required by the government as contractors cannot speculate on the actual service load provided to Babcock Road.

Response: Preliminary results of the power study are not available. Due to the stated uncertainties about the power supply available from National Grid, Offeror’s should develop methods and prices for producing electric power for the thermal remedy using portable generators.

9. Please confirm that the bench scale soil samples will be collected outside the TTZ1 as the highest hits of TeCA are outside the TTZ1 (namely PDI 104R3, PDI-102R4).

Response: One of the three bench-scale samples can be from the area near PDI 104R3 or R4. However, two of the bench-scale samples should be collected from within the TTZ1.

10. We are requesting that the due date for the proposal be extended to Monday, June 27. This would be a two-week extension. The last day to submit RFIs is Friday, May 27. This would only allow two weeks for potential adjustments to the technical approach and seed project cost, assuming that answers are promptly posted by the government. Scopes of work may change requiring more time for offeror’s subcontractors to respond. There was mention during the site visit of a study to determine electrical power source(s) for the thermal treatment, essential information that may not be available for review and consideration in preparing the proposal. Offerors need sufficient time to research and develop a power plan if one is not readily available from the government.

Response: See Amendment 0003.

11. Since there are numerous uncertainties regarding the local electrical power supply (which AECOM is currently evaluating for USACE), and due to the current market volatility of energy prices, would the government consider eliminating the electrical service and usage price from the price of Option Task 6.2, and instead require the contractor to submit and commit to a maximum amount of power use per month to meet the temperature and operational performance specifications for Option Task 6.2?

Response: No. See response to Amendment 0004, RFI 8.

12. If the government intends to require the contractor to propose a FFP for installation of electrical service and electricity usage for Option Task 6.2, can the government then provide key assumptions for contractors to use as a basis of estimate? These assumptions would include a) price/kWh or other unit; b) distance to a 2500 kVA power source.

Response: No. See response to Amendment 0004, RFI 8.

13. Option Task 6.2 – Please confirm that the ISTR system operation heating temperature as indicated in Section 6.6.2 is 100C vs 146C. Section 6.2 references construction specifications in Attachment G.

Attachment G Section 3.8, Table 2 Primary ISTR Performance Criteria – Temperature indicates that 90% of the temperature sensors meet a minimum of 146C.

Response: Offerors should assume that 100C is the target temperature.

14. Can an accurate CADD file of the site be shared? This will assist all bidders with a level of precision.

Response: The Government does not have recent CADD files for FUDS. However, the GIS files for the DAR are included with this amendment.

15. Can USACE share the electrical power study that was performed by AECOM? What is the available electrical service (location, voltage, amperage, phase, total kVA/kW rating). Please provide as much detail as possible.

Response: See response to Amendment 0004, RFI 8. Additionally, DAR Section 3.2.2, pg. 93 provides additional information on power utilities. Figure 23 of DAR also includes the location of electrical lines.

16. Please describe where and how much of the site the contractor can use as a laydown area.

Response: The property owner will cordon off approximately 254,063 SF for the laydown area adjacent to the Source Area. It will be up to the Offeror to determine the best use of the laydown area.

17. What are the specific requirements for demonstrating hydraulic and pneumatic control?

Response: The intent of hydraulic and pneumatic control is to ensure that there is no mobilization of contamination into the groundwater and subsequent migration beyond the treatment zone; or migration of vapors outside of the treatment area that can condense and increase the area of soil contamination.

The Offeror needs to demonstrate inwards pressure gradients between inside and outside the treatment area for both the vadose zone (pneumatic) and saturated zone (hydraulic).

18. Is there an anticipated schedule or timeline of when the remediation must be completed?

Response: The period of performance for the Seed Task Order is 24-months from contract award.

19. Are any aspects of the project costs exempt from Rhode Island taxation? If so, please describe tax-exempt elements affecting offerors’ pricing.

Response: It is the contractor’s responsibility to determine tax liability. After contract award, the Contractor may complete and submit the applicable Sales Tax Exemption form and send it to the Contracting Officer for signature.

20. Will subcontractors not contacting site soils (e.g., electricians) be required to have OSHA HAZWOPER training and/or medical monitoring?

Response: It is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure that the Health and Safety plan is in accordance with

OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120.

21. On page 75 of 77 Section 5: Seed Task Order – The government is requesting the following: “The Offeror shall provide binding rates for the subcontractors regardless of the percentage of work performed by the subcontractor.” And on Page 76 of 77 “The Offeror shall complete the binding rate spreadsheet for the Prime/JV Partner and each subcontractor associated with the proposed team for Factor 1.” Question:

Will the Government consider requiring binding rates be applied to only the Prime/JV Partner?

Response: Binding rates are required for Prime and JV partnerships as well as subcontractors.

22. RFP states “All pages including but not limited to title pages, cover letters, Table of Contents pages, tables, illustrations, blank pages, dividers, and appendices will be counted in the page calculation.” Will the Government exclude the PPQ and CPAR pages from the Volume I page limitation as these documents are prepared by the client/ customer, are many pages each, and their page quantity is beyond the control of the offeror?

Response: Refer to page 63 of the solicitation.

23. Please clarify whether the Phase I ISTR area, volume, and depth to competent bedrock should conform to the dimensions stated in Section 6.6 of the PWS, or should they conform to the measured area in Attachment E (~10,800 sq ft) and estimated depths to bedrock based on bedrock topographic contours depicted in Figure 10A from the DAR?

Response: The area, volume, and depths should conform to Section 6.6 of the PWS.

24. Please clarify the downgradient monitoring requirements for verifying hydraulic control:

a) Should downgradient wells designated for monitoring hydraulic control be constructed as extraction wells, per Value Engineering Study recommendation VE-20?

b) Do existing wells EA-117S, EA-117D, and EA-117R meet the PWS requirement for assessing hydraulic control at a minimum of three downgradient monitoring locations per Section 6.6.2, No. 3. f).

c) Does a monitoring location refer to one monitoring well or a monitoring well cluster with 4 different depth intervals, similar to the definition of a monitoring well location for wells within the TTZ (i.e., 2 OB monitoring wells and 2 bedrock wells)?

Response: The intent of hydraulic and pneumatic control is to ensure that there is no mobilization of contamination into the groundwater and subsequent migration beyond the treatment zone; or migration of vapors ouside of the treatment area that can condense and increase the area of soil contamination.

The Contractor needs to demonstrate inwards pressure gradients between inside and outside the treatment area for both the vadose zone (pneumatic) and saturated zone (hydraulic).

a) It is not a requirement to construct downgradient monitoring wells as extraction wells. However, they *may* be constructed as extraction if the contractor believes that this is important.

b) Contractors should assess whether existing wells EA-117S, EA-117D, and EA-117R meet the requirements of the PWS. If so, they can propose to used them as specified in Section 6.6.2.

c) A monitoring location as described in Section 6.6.2 has four distinct sampling depth intervals, similar to monitoring well locations within the TTZ.

25. Please clarify if well abandonment requirements specified in Table 1 of the DAR should be included in Option Task 6.2 or if only wells pertaining to the Phase 1 ISTR area should be abandoned.

Response: Only wells pertaining to the Phase 1 ISTR must be abandonded in accordance with the requirements provided in Option Task 6.2. Wells described in Table 1 of the DAR are not included in Option Task 6.2.

26. In the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for the Seed Task Order, Option Task 6.0 states that “Technical and schedule requirements in Task 6.0 that conflict with Specification Section 02 61 18, supersede the requirements of Specification Section 02 61 18 (which were written for the entire Source Area Remediation).” Please confirm that technical requirements in PWS Task 6.0 also supersede the primary performance requirements included in Attachment F, particularly the minimum target temperature for the thermal treatment i.e. 100 degrees Celsius in PWS Task 6.0 supersedes 146 degrees Celsius in Attachment F.

Response: The PWS for the Seed Task Order supersedes the DAR. Refer to page 98 of the solicitation.

27. On Page 18 of 77 of the solicitation, Section 7.6 Quality Control Testing of the IDIQ PWS, states “The Contractor shall submit written qualifications of the designated Contractor project chemist in the form of a resume as part of their proposal to demonstrate appropriate analytical chemistry and data validation experience with their proposal for approval by USACE.” Please clarify if a resume for the project chemist is to be provided as part of the proposal, or if this resume is to be provided with submittal of the SAP and UFP-QAPP as part of task order execution by the successful offeror.

Response: Under Section 7.6 of the IDIQ PWS, the inclusion of resumes is not required with Offeror's proposals.

28. The Pricing Instructions do not state that offerors need to prepare a written summary related to pricing strategy and description of how labor and indirect rates were developed. The requirements listed are the required forms (SF1442 and Form 30 if applicable), Representations and Certifications, Binding Rates and the Seed Task order. Please confirm that a written summary is not needed.

Response: A written summary is not needed.

29. In the Performance Work Statement, Task 6.2.2, under 1) Power Availability, it is noted that National Grid is conducting a power study to determine existing electrical and natural gas availability as well as costs and infrastructure associated with providing additional electrical power and natural gas. While we can calculate the power requirements for our proposed ISTR, it is unclear what is currently available for electrical and natural gas and subsequently the capital costs associated with the utility providing upgraded service to the Site cannot be calculated. Please advise if costs for the utility to provide upgraded service to the Site should be excluded from the seed task order pricing.

Response: See response to Amendment 0004, RFI 8.

30. In Appendix G of the Pre-Design Report (National Grid Power Supply Correspondence), it is noted that a feasibility study to determine exact costs for upgraded electrical service and to model the load on the system would cost $25,000, to be applied to the construction costs. Please advise if this cost is to be carried in the Seed Task Order pricing.

Response: No, this price is not to be carried in the Seed Task Order pricing. Appendix G was provided as reference material only. Please refer to Amendment 0004 RFI 8 for additional information.

31. We understand that biding rates are to be provided for subcontractor labor, but please confirm that subcontractor costs are to be applied as lump sum per bid item in the Seed Task Order pricing bid schedule and that their labor is not to be broken out in the labor tab which states it is for the Prime contractor.

Response: Sub-contractor prices can be applied as a lump sum in the Seed Task Order.

32. Due to responses to be provided for previous Request for Information not yet answered and new RFIs, we respectfully request a 2-week extension to the response date.

33. Regarding electrical service to the work site, we have reached out to National Grid but have hit a bit of a roadblock. Evidently the owner of the site needs to make the information request per the following instructions: In order for Rhode Island Energy to preform both a preliminary feasibility study as well as full feasibility study we will need a New Service Electric form filled out and sent to workrequest@nationalgrid.com for processing. This form will need to be filled out by the current owner of the property in order to be processed. If they would like they can also call the new service into 1-800- 375-7405 option 2 on prompting to put in the work request or fill out the above form. This will ensure that the company follows the correct internal channels and that you and owner work with the correct representative from start to finish.

It is going to be very difficult to get any sort of accurate cost for this aspect of the work without their support. As this is a vital cost component, we respectfully request that in addition to responding to our RFI, please consider and support prior requests for an extension to the due date for proposals.

Response: See response to Amendment 0004, RFI 8.

34. May an Offeror adjust the Bid Schedule to allow for both members of a joint venture to apply its own individual markup rate to Equipment, Subcontracts, ODCs and Travel?

Response: No.

35. The Program Manager is shown in Year 1 but the Unit Column is empty and the cells for the various “rates” and “markups” cells, etc. are grayed out. These cells have no formula for this position in Year 1. In Years 2 through 5, the Program Manager position shows the unit of measure “Hour” and has formulas for the “rates” and “markup” cells, etc. for the contractor to fill. Will the Government please provide a revised binding rate sheet that has the formulas in Year 1 for Program Manager so contractors can populate?

Response: A revised Binding Rate Table is provided with this Amendment.

36. The revised client binding rate sheet has 23 positions in Base Year, but only 21 positions in Years 2 to

5. Is this an oversight?

Response: See response to Amendment 0004, RFI 35.

37. The Senior Scientist and Scientist are listed in Year 1 but not for the out years. Should this be revised?

Response: See response to Amendment 0004, RFI 35.

38. Can the contractor modify the combined markup formulas found on the "Markups" tab in cells B15, B26 to reflect their own DCAA-approved accounting practices?

Response: Yes. However, the formulas will need to be viewable to the Government.

39. On the Base and out years labor tabs, the client has populated Direct Rate (OT) values for the Key Personnel labor categories in column E. Can the Contractor enter their actual Direct Rate (OT) values in those cells?

Response: Yes.

40. Several questions are still awaiting Government response from Amendment 01, and other clarifications are needed for Amendment 02. With just one week remaining prior to the current proposal due date, will the Government extend the proposal due date by one week to June 20, 2022, in order to allow contractors adequate time to digest and incorporate the forthcoming responses into their proposals on this best value procurement?

(End of Summary of Changes)