Questions and Answers Environmental Drilling Investigation and Construction Monitoring Oversight

Transcription

1 Questions and Answers Environmental Drilling Investigation and Construction Monitoring Oversight Question : Answer : Question : Answer : Question : Answer : The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment I was able to access on MnDOT s website included the text only. Is there another copy that includes the tables, figures and appendices or is there another way to access the additional information? These materials would be very helpful in the preparation of the work plan. The entire Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is posted as a zip file on the website. There are folders (containing multiple documents) and pdf (containing the main text) within the main zip file. The folders are appropriately labeled as to their contents. For example, the folder labeled Figures contains the Figures from the Phase I. Is it only the main text of the proposal or does the cover letter, table of contents, tabs, etc. count toward the 0 pages in the proposal? The thirty (0) pages include the cover letter, tabs, etc. that is chosen by the Responder to be submitted. The only variance to the thirty (0) pages is the organizational chart and resumes as described in Item of the RFP. On page of the RFP under Section Scope of Work and Deliverables, rd sentence, it is stated that the investigation work plan must be approved by MnDOT s project manager and the drilling investigation must begin immediately and be complete. Because MnDOT is looking for assurances/approvals through the MPCA is it right to assume that the work plan will be approved by the MPCA prior to beginning the drilling investigation? Or is MnDOT looking to bypass MPCA approval of the Phase II Work Plan in order to expedite the commencement date for the investigation? If the MnDOT Project Manager determines that communication is needed with the MPCA, it will be done as needed during the drilling investigation. Question : Proposal Content Item : Does a resume constitute verification of current licensure or health and safety training, or are certificates required? If required, do certificates count within the 0-page limit, or are they considered an appendix? Answer : For the purposes of the RFP, the resume is sufficient for verification of current licensure or health and safety training provided that the date(s) of the certification/training, if applicable, are included. Question : Proposal Content Item : RFP states All field staff persons assigned to the project must be Minnesota Department of Health Certified Asbestos Inspectors. Does this requirement apply to field staff persons who are present for reasons other than to test and monitor environmental conditions such as Geoprobe operation, backhoe operation, utility clearance, traffic control or other? Answer : The field staff that are present to test and monitor the environmental conditions are required to be Minnesota Department of Health Certified. Once asbestos is determined to be present, the backhoe operator, etc. would need to be Minnesota Department of Health Certified if additional investigation is needed in the area. Question : Proposal Content Item :

2 Do the certification forms and accompanying documents count within the 0-page limit, or are they considered an appendix? Answer : The required forms under Proposal Content Item do not count towards the 0 page limit. Question : Proposal Content Item : The Job Classification table does not include a line for Technicians to perform such activities as Geoprobe operation, utility clearance, traffic control or other. Are rates and estimated quantities for these customary types of Technician activities to be included within the Total Project Cost, or are they considered Additional Services or Tasks? Answer : Question : Answer : Question : Answer : For the purposes of the RFP, they would be considered Additional Services or Tasks. The project will require the use of industry-specific equipment. Are rates and estimated quantities for these customary types of equipment rental to be included within the Total Project Cost, or are they considered Additional Services or Tasks? For the purposes of the RFP, they would be considered Additional Services or Tasks. It is likely that subcontractors other than a laboratory would need to be engaged for project support services such as test pit excavation, private utility clearance, surveying or other. Are estimated fees for these types of foreseen project needs to be included with the Total Project Cost, as Additional Services or Tasks, or not included in any fashion? For the purposes of the RFP, they would be considered Additional Services or Tasks. Question : The project will require significant efforts and possibly application fees for permitting of roadway use, property access, railway encroachment, dewatering discharge, contaminated materials disposal or other. Are estimated fees for these types of foreseen project needs to be included with the Total Project Cost, as Additional Services or Tasks, or not included in any fashion? Answer : It is anticipated that MnDOT will obtain all of the property access permits. The selected Responder will have to coordinate with the property owner when drilling investigation work is scheduled to be completed on the property. Dewatering discharge and contaminated materials disposal will be handled by the Construction Contractor, except for what is needed for the drilling investigation. The selected Responder may be asked to assist the MnDOT s Project Manager with permitting, etc. For the purposes of the RFP, please include items as Additional Services or Tasks that would be required for the drilling investigation. Question : RFP requests copies of the proposal. Does Mn/DOT expect a single copy of the Cost Proposal or one copy of the Cost Proposal per proposal copy? Answer : Per Item of the RFP, Provide, in a separate envelope, one copy of the cost proposal, clearly marked on the outside Cost Proposal Question : If used, would a cover letter and tabbed dividers separating major proposal sections count towards the 0 page proposal limit? Answer : Refer to Answer #.

3 Question : Under qualifications, is the Department seeking all requested information in stand-along staff resumes or would it be acceptable to describe individual work experience in the resumes with further summarization of firm/project team qualifications in the proposal test body? Answer : The Responder may include further summarization of firm/project team qualifications in the proposal text body. This would count towards the thirty (0) page limit. Question : As this RFP includes scope to conduct a Drilling Investigation, is it MnDOT s intent to include charges associated with drilling in the cost estimate? If so, is there a defined footage and methodology? Answer : For the purposes of the RFP, drilling costs should be added as Additional Costs and Tasks within the cost proposal. Question : The RFP states that at least one personnel must be licensed as a professional Geologist for Civil Engineer through Minnesota Board Licensure, would other types of engineering licensure (i.e., Environmental Engineer) be acceptable? Answer : An Environmental Engineer would be an acceptable substitute. Question : The personnel listing for cost estimation purposes does not include a classification for field technician. Providing that the field technicians have the minimum degree and/or experience requirements, can field technicians be substituted for staff level professionals? Answer : For the purposes of the RFP, a field technician cannot be substituted for staff level professions. Field technicians can be added as Additional Costs and Tasks. Question : Please confirm that the RFP lists position titles and associated hours solely for comparison of cost estimates and that the chosen contractor may reallocate hours as long as they are following the staff matrix submitted as part of the proposal. Answer : For the purposes of the RFP, the position titles and staff hours are for comparison purposes. The actual scope of work will be negotiated with State s Project Manager. Question : For preparation of the investigation work plan can MnDOT provide all current and past investigation project related geospatial data; including all vector, raster and tabular information preferably in an ESRI ArcGIS file geodatabase with associated.lyr files and metadata? Answer : MnDOT Office of Environmental Stewardship has only investigated one parcel within the corridor. The coordinates of the borings can be found on the boring logs. Question : Is there some more information that can be provided regarding how the Mn/DOT will establish the allowable direct labor costs and overhead costs when determining the final labor fees using a cap of 0%? And, can a staff person conduct work under different job classifications (i.e., project manager, project engineer, hydrogeologist) and will the unit rate be determined based on the staff person s direct labor cost or by an established unit rate for each job classification? Answer : Per MnDOT Office of Audit: I would assume the firms answering the RFP would provide a fee schedule or a fixed hourly rate schedule if this is to be a unit rate agreement. When a company uses fixed hourly rates and the same person is doing different job classifications it is common to see a different rate for each classification. The OH cap is not an automatic 0%. It is different for each consultant. If their

4 OH estimate is over 0%, then 0% is appropriate. If it was a cost plus fixed fee consultant this wouldn t apply as they would have people for each classification usually, even if they were using the fixed hourly rate format due to the nature of work. Cost plus firms are usually larger and this situation they re asking about doesn t come up. Question : Could you provide copies of boring logs currently available for the project? Answer : MnDOT Environmental Stewardship has only completed a drilling investigation on one parcel within the corridor. A PDF of the boring logs is attached. Question : The RFP lists labor hours and laboratory samples for the cost proposal. Other anticipated costs are not listed such as drilling and traffic control, so should these costs also be included as additional costs as indicated on page of the RFP? Must all anticipated costs such as vehicle mileage, equipment rental, subcontractors, etc. be included in the proposal to be included in the contract or will there be an opportunity to include additional specific items during contract negotiations? Will the inclusion of additional cost items be considered as part of the proposal evaluation score? Answer : The other anticipated costs should be listed as Additional Tasks and Services. The final scope of work will be negotiated with the MnDOT Project Manager. The inclusion of additional cost items will not be considered as part of the proposal evaluation score. Question : Will additional subcontracted services not specifically listed under the cost proposal section, such as drillers, be required? If so, is a markup for the subcontracting costs allowed? And, is there a preference for establishing unit rates for the drilling services? Answer : Unless the Responder has all in-house capabilities, the use of subcontractors will be required. No markups are allowed. There is no preference for establishing unit rates for the drilling services. Question : Does the laboratory conducting the testing on samples collected for the project have to be located in Minnesota? Answer : The laboratory has to be Minnesota Department of Health certified. Question : As part of the investigation work plan, do you want a detailed scope of work that includes proposed locations, number and depth of borings or similar sampling information. If so, is there more detailed information regarding the identified sites such as copies or notes of MPCA files reviewed as part of the Phase I work that would show where documented contamination exists. Answer : Item of the RFP explains the minimum contents of the work plan. Appendix G of the Phase I contains File Review Reports from properties researched to complete the Phase I. Question : Would retainage be withheld for the entire planned construction period through? Or will the project work be done in phases in which retainage would be released? Is accrual of interest allowed on retainage? Answer : The Responder is paid based on work completed. Question : Is Mn/DOT planning to contract with one consultant or multiple consultants? Answer : It is anticipated that MnDOT will contract with one consultant for this work.

5 BORING : ft bgs N: E: -foot continuous CASING ft // SB-0 // / 0. GM (0-0. ft) SILTY GRAVEL (0.-. ft), brown, dry, loose (% fines, % gravel). FILL. CLAYEY SILT with gravel, vegetation, and black slag/coal (.- ft), reddish brown to black, dry, medium stiff (0% fines, % gravel). FILL. SB-A-ft /. SW GRAVELLY SAND (- ft), brown, dry, loose; fine to coarse, subrounded sand (0% sand, % gravel). FILL. SAND with black slag/coal (- ft), brown to black, dry, loose, fine to medium sand (0% sand). FILL. SAND (- ft), brown, dry, loose, fine grained (0% sand). 0.0 ENVIRO (NO WELL) PUBLIC STORAGE LOGS.GPJ BORING LOGS.GPJ // SB-GW-ft / / / ( ft) -inch layer of dark brown SILT with vegetation ( ft) grades to moist ( ft) saturated Boring advanced to feet below grade.

6 BORING : ft bgs N: E: -foot continuous CASING. ft // SB-0 // / 0. (0-0. ft) SILT (0.- ft), dark brown, dry, soft (0% fines). FILL. SANDY SILT (- ft), brown, dry, soft, nonplastic (0% fines, % sand). FILL. SILT with concrete debris (- ft), yellowish brown to black, dry, loose (% fines, 0% sand). FILL. SILT (- ft), v. dark brown, no concrete debris. FILL. 0. SILTY SAND with slag/coal (- ft), v. dark brown to black, dry, loose (% fines, 0% sand). FILL. / 0. SM SB-A-ft SAND (- ft), dark brown to brown, dry, loose; fine to medium grained (0% sand). / 0. ENVIRO (NO WELL) PUBLIC STORAGE LOGS.GPJ BORING LOGS.GPJ // SB-GW-ft / / ( ft) grades brown to light brown (. ft) moist (. ft) saturated Boring advanced to feet below grade.

7 BORING : ft bgs N: E: -foot continuous CASING ft // SB-0 // SB-A-.ft / 0.0 (0-0. ft) SILT (0.-. ft), dark brown, dry, soft (0% fines). FILL. SAND (.- ft), brown, dry, loose, fine grained (0% sand). FILL. SB-B-ft 0. SAND (- ft), brown, dry, loose, fine to medium grained (0% sand). / / 0. ENVIRO (NO WELL) PUBLIC STORAGE LOGS.GPJ BORING LOGS.GPJ // SB-GW-ft / / SW SAND (- ft), reddish brown to brown, dry, loose; fine to coarse grained, subrounded sand (0% sand ). ( ft) moist ( ft) saturated Boring advanced to feet below grade.

8 BORING : ft bgs N: E: -foot continuous CASING ft // SB-0 // SB-A-ft /. SM (0-0. ft) SILTY SAND with slag/coal (0.- ft), black, dry, loose (0% fines, 0% sand). Hydrocarbon odor present. FILL. 0. /. SAND (- ft), stained black, dry, loose, fine to medium grained (0% sand). Hydrocarbon odor present.. /. ( ft) grades to brown ENVIRO (NO WELL) PUBLIC STORAGE LOGS.GPJ BORING LOGS.GPJ // SB-B-ft SB-GW-ft / / ( ft) grades to black with some silt, moist ( ft) grades to brown, no silt ( ft) saturated, strong hydrocarbon odor present Boring advanced to feet below grade.

9 BORING : ft bgs N: E: -foot continuous CASING ft // SB-0 // / 0. GP (0-0. ft) GRAVEL and concrete debris (0.- ft). FILL. Interval cored using a -inch auger due to geoprobe refusal. SB-A-ft / 0.. SANDY SILT with trace gravel and clay (- ft), dark brown to black, dry, medium stiff (0% fines, % sand, % gravel). FILL. 0. GRAVELLY SAND (- ft), with trace clay, dry, brown (% fines, % sand, % gravel). FILL. ENVIRO (NO WELL) PUBLIC STORAGE LOGS.GPJ BORING LOGS.GPJ // SB-B-ft SB-GW-ft / / / SAND with trace gravel (- ft), strong brown, dry, loose, fine to medium sand (% sand, % gravel). ( ft) moist, gravel absent ( ft) saturated, slight hydrocarbon odor ( ft) Strong hydrocarbon odor and staining present Boring advanced to feet below grade.

10 BORING : ft bgs N: E: -foot continuous CASING ft // SB-0 // (0-0. ft) SILT with gravel (0.- ft), dry, soft. FILL. / SB-A-ft / SAND (- ft), dry, loose, fine grained (0% sand). FILL. 0. / 0. ( ft) -inch layer of dark brown SILT ENVIRO (NO WELL) PUBLIC STORAGE LOGS.GPJ BORING LOGS.GPJ // SB-GW-ft / / ( ft) moist ( ft) saturated Boring advanced to feet below grade.

11 BORING : ft bgs N: E: -foot continuous CASING ft // SB-0 // / 0. (0-0. ft) SANDY SILT (0.- ft), black, dry, medium stif (0% fines, % sand). FILL. SAND (- ft), brown, dry, loose, fine grained (0 % sand). 0. SB-A-ft / / ( ft) moist ENVIRO (NO WELL) PUBLIC STORAGE LOGS.GPJ BORING LOGS.GPJ // SB-B-ft SB-GW-ft / / ( ft) saturated Boring advanced to feet below grade.

12 BORING : ft bgs N: E: -foot continuous CASING. ft // SB-0 // / SM (0-0. ft) SILT with trace gravel (0.- ft), dark brown with black, dry, soft, fine grained gravel ((% fines, % gravel). FILL. SILTY SAND (- ft), brown sand, dark brown silt, dry, fine grained sand (% fines, % sand). FILL. SB-A-ft / 0.. SW SAND with concrete debris and silt (- ft), brown to dark brown, dry (% fines, % sand). FILL. SAND (-. ft), brown, dry, fine to medium grained (0% sand). / SANDY SILT (.-. ft), dark brown, dry, soft (% fines, % sand). SAND (.- ft), brown, dry, loose, fine to medium grained (0% sand). ENVIRO (NO WELL) PUBLIC STORAGE LOGS.GPJ BORING LOGS.GPJ // SB-GW-ft / /.0.0 ( ft) moist (. ft) saturated Boring advanced to feet below grade.

13 BORING : ft bgs N: E: -foot continuous CASING ft // SB-0 // / 0. GM (0-0. ft) SILTY GRAVEL (0.- ft), dark brown to black silt, dry, loose; medium to coarse, angular gravel. FILL. Utilized a -inch auger between and ft due to geoprobe refusal. SB-A-ft /.. GM SILT with gravel and sand (- ft), dark brown and reddish brown, dry (% fines, % sand, % gravel). FILL. SILTY GRAVEL (- ft), light brown silt, buff gravel, moist; medium to coarse, angular gravel. FILL. ( ft) grades to brown, moist SB-B-ft /. (-. ft) vegetation (fibers, wood) GRAVEL with silt and sand (.- ft), light brown, loose, wet; fine to coarse, angular gravel (% fines, % sand, 0% gravel). FILL. ENVIRO (NO WELL) PUBLIC STORAGE LOGS.GPJ BORING LOGS.GPJ // SB-GW-ft 0. GP ( ft) REFUSAL

14 BORING : ft bgs N: E: 0 -foot continuous CASING. ft // SB- // / 0. (0-0. ft) GRAVELLY SILT (0.-. ft), yellowish brown to light brown, dry, soft (% fines, % gravel). FILL. / GM SILTY GRAVEL (.- ft), light brown to light gray, dry, loose; fine to medium, angular gravel (0% fines, 0% gravel). FILL. SM SILTY SAND (- ft), v. dark brown, dry to moist, loose, fine to coarse (% fines, % sand). SAND (- ft), brown, loose, fine to coarse (0% sand). / 0. ENVIRO (NO WELL) PUBLIC STORAGE LOGS.GPJ BORING LOGS.GPJ // SB-GW-ft / / SW ( ft) moist (. ft) saturated Boring advanced to feet below grade.

15 BORING : ft bgs N: E: -foot continuous CASING. ft // SB- // /.0 (0-0. ft) SANDY SILT with trace clay (0.-. ft), v. dark brown, dry, soft (0% fines, % sand). FILL. 0. SAND (.- ft), brown and strong brown, dry, loose, fine to medium (0% sand). FILL. /. SB-A-ft.0 CLAYEY SILT (-. ft), brown, dry, soft (0% fines). SAND (.- ft), brown, dry, loose, fine to medium (0% sand). ENVIRO (NO WELL) PUBLIC STORAGE LOGS.GPJ BORING LOGS.GPJ // SB-GW-ft / / / SW ( ft) moist (. ft) saturated SAND (- ft), brown, wet; fine to coarse, subrounded sand (0% sand). Boring advanced to feet below grade.

16 BORING : ft bgs N: E: -foot continuous CASING N/A // SB- // SB-A-ft / (0-0. ft) GRAVELLY SILT (0.- ft), yellowish brown to brown, dry, soft; fine to medium, subangular gravel (0% fines, 0% gravel). FILL. SB-B-ft 0. SW GRAVELLY SAND (- ft), brown, dry, fine to coarse grained sand (% sand, % gravel). FILL. Boring advanced to feet below grade. ENVIRO (NO WELL) PUBLIC STORAGE LOGS.GPJ BORING LOGS.GPJ //