To the Request for Qualifications
August 28, 2003
To: Prospective Proposers
ADDENDUM – 02
To The Request for Qualifications
Environmental Services for Landfill and Disposal Site Remediation
IWM-03002
A. This Addendum – 02, is intended to provide Proposers with the answers to written questions received during the time period of August 12, 2003 to August 27, 2003, as well as questions received at the Proposers’ Conference held August 26, 2003. A listing of those questions and answers are noted in Attachment B.
B. Attachment A of this Addendum – 02 is a summary of the introduction given at the Proposers’ Conference.
C. Attachment C of this Addendum – 02 is a current mailing list used for this RFQ. This mailing list includes the names of those entities that requested a copy of this RFQ, as well as those who submitted questions for this RFQ and/or attended the Proposers’ Conference. An asterisk identifies attendees of the Proposers’ Conference.
All other terms, conditions, and instructions for the Request for Qualifications remain the same.
Sincerely,
{Original Signed By}
Jennifer Burnett
Associate Contract Analyst
Administrative Services Branch
ATTACHMENT A
INTRODUCTION
PROPOSER’S CONFERENCE FOR IWM-03002
AUGUST 26, 2003
Thank you for showing interest in the Solid Waste Site Cleanup Program and attending this mornings' meeting. My name is Jeff Cornette; I am one of the staff in the Solid Waste Site Cleanup Program.
This meeting is for the Request for Qualifications for the Environmental Services for Landfill and Disposal Site Remediation Contract. Existing contracts for this work with contractors are nearing their funding limits, and the consulting engineering contract will expire next spring. The Integrated Waste Management Board is planning to award contracts to two companies to implement the Waste Board's remediation of landfill and illegal disposal sites in California. These contracts will be for contractors that will perform the remediation work.
Mandated by State legislation, the Solid Waste Site Cleanup Program was begun in 1994 with 3 contractors and a consulting engineer. The program legislation provides for cleanup of solid waste disposal and codisposal sites, and at illegal waste dumps where the owner is unwilling or unable to clean up the site in a timely manner, and where there is concern for public health, safety and the environment. Since that time, with seven other contracts for contractors and consulting engineers, the Integrated Waste Management Board has assisted in remediation of sites throughout the State of California.
We have worked on sites as simple as picking up illegally disposed waste to major remediation efforts at landfills and burn dump sites to waste tire fires. Work on these contracts may be similar to some of that previously done by the Solid Waste Cleanup Program, but a definite list of Board approved projects to be done under these contracts is not available at this time. Over the years we have eliminated many of the major problem sites in the State. Cost of projects undertaken under previous contracts has ranged from $20,000 to over a million dollars. Remediation sites have spanned the entire State, from Del Norte County to Imperial County.
The program has become very popular with County and local agencies as well as citizen groups throughout the State. Unfortunately, there are many sites remaining in California that need assistance from the Waste Board and these contracts.
This Request for Qualifications is to provide two contractors to assist the Waste Board in continuing remediation of sites in California. We are currently investigating sites over the entire State, and hope to continue investigation and remediation of these and other sites for many years.
The procedures for submitting a response to this RFQ for these contracts, as well as how remediation projects are accomplished, are included in the RFQ package. If there are any questions about that package or the Solid Waste Cleanup Program, we may discuss them here. All questions submitted at this meeting or previously submitted as required by the RFQ will be answered in an Addendum to be issued as quickly as possible. As always, oral responses given at this meeting are subject to review and clarification, only responses given in the Addendum will be considered valid for contract purposes.
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 3 OF 3
Question and Answers
Environmental Services for Landfill and Disposal Site Remediation
Contract Number IWM-03002
Q1. In order to prepare subcontractors for the above-mentioned RFQ, may we attain a copy of the unreliable list, so we can ascertain the subs are not listed on the list?
A1. The CIWMB does not currently have any firms identified on the Unreliable Contractor’s list.
Q2. Will the Environmental Services for Landfill and Disposal Site Remediation project be seeking a Construction Manager as well?
A2. No. Program staff and/or the Program’s engineering Engineering services consultant Consultant handle construction management.
Q3. Will any of the requested services include investigation of “found” contamination or will that fall under a separate contract?
A3. Most investigation is done by either Program staff or the Engineering Consultant. We may have some investigation done under these contracts, if and when it is determined to be beneficial. The contractor may be used for investigative services, as required.
Q4. Will either contract include design services?
A4. The furthest that we’ve gone in with that with these contracts is having you sub out the local surveyor to survey. With design for remediation, itRemediation design is either done in-house or by our Consulting Engineer. We have had the Contractors subcontract out some surveying to local firms.
Q5. It’s stated budgets for projects are $1 ½ M and may go as high as $2 ½ million. What are these budgeted amounts based on?
A5. Funding for the Program is allocated annually in the Budget Act and may be up to $5 million. The initial contract funding is based on previous demand for Board-managed projects. At the discretion of the Board, tThe contracts may be amended for additional funding up to the not to exceed amount at the discretion of the Baord depending on demand and budget.Its part of the $5 million dollar a year budget that we receive for that. It’s a cycling thing, as far as how much requests we get for the other funding parts of the program with the loans and grants and the contract.
For those that aren’t aware, the Board needs to take action to augment the contracts beyond the original contract amount. So, I don’t want anybody to misunderstand and think that it is a guaranteed $2.5 million on each contract because it’s not. As the RFQ document states, we have the authority, if necessary, to augment funds, but again, it’s not a guarantee.
Q6. Have you identified geographic locations of projects (i.e. N. Cal, S. Cal, etc.)?
A6. Projects to be funded under these contracts have not been determined. Projects are expected to be on a statewide basis. Currently, I am trying to get all of the projects we have backlogged accomplished with the funds remaining in the existing contracts. After reviewing those yesterday, it is unlikely that we will. I am reluctant to say that it is this site, or that site, because I just don’t know. What I can tell you is that the history of the program is that we’ve done projects from Del Norte to Imperial County. No greater number of sites in one specific county. Last time we checked, there was a fairly even geographic spread on those. I think that especially when you consider population that it was very evenly distributed according to population across the state.
Q7. What are the projected number of contracts projects over the duration of the contract?
A7. That’s going to entirely dependent on how much the projects are. We had a very large range in the past of the numbers. Probably, a typical average I would say would be somewhere between 4 and maybe 8 at the most; and that is in the entire $2.5 million dollar contract. Occasionally, we have had contractors working two sites at the same time. Typically, what happens is that you will have a construction crew out at one site, you’ll be investigating another with us estimating quantities, estimating costs. But occasionally, we have had for short durations, two of your work crews out at separate sites.The niumber of projects completed under these contracts will be dependent on the type and size of the projects.
Q8. Will the contract include construction management or quality assurance services?
A8. Both construction management and quality assurances are done either in-house with staff, or with our Consulting Engineer. The most that I could see that we would ever have is occasionally with the final grading of the some of the sites we have some compaction requirements and it just may be simpler to go ahead and have you sub out that to a local lab. We try to keep this things as cheap as possible.
The QA/QC that is required for landfills is way beyond my capabilities, my mental capabilities so we don’t really do anything of that depth. The most that we do with that is gradation and compaction.
Q9. Regarding the earlier question about geographic distribution. Does the fact that you are going to award two contracts have anything to do with trying to cover the geographic distribution?
A9. No. If we ever get to the point of ever having a real backlog of work in the State, so I would be able to tell what projects would be coming up, we might consider that.
Q10. Who is the Consulting Engineer for the Board?
A10. The Consulting Engineer for the Board is Bryan A. Stirrat and Associates and they are based in Diamond Bar.
Q11. When does the Consulting Engineer contract expire?
A11. May 15, 2005.
Q12. Who are the current contractors for these services?
A12. A. J. Diani Construction out of Santa Maria and Irv Guinn Construction Company out of Bakersfield.
Q13. So this is a construction contract; do the work orders come out as scopes of work, or do you work together to develop the scopes of work?
A13. Work Orders are prepared by Program staff, based on input from the Engineering Consultant and the Contractor. The Contractor prepares a Work Plan based on information prepared by Program staff and the Engineering Consultant. When the Work Plan is approved by staff, a Work Order for site remediation based on the Work Plan is issued.When we get notified of a site, we go out and take a look at it. We may or may not include the Consulting Engineer and the Contractors in the first visit. But along the way, after we’ve determined how we’re gonna go, whether it’s something really worthy. What we’re trying to do at that time is get both the Consulting Engineer and the Contractor involved. As the project then is finalized, we basically go in and write a work order for the Contractor to develop a Work Plan, review the Work Plan, and then issue a Work Order for accomplishing the remediation based on the Work Plan.
Q14. So it’s a combined effort between you, the Consulting Engineer and the Contractor?
A14. Depending Yes, depending on the site.
Q15. Under the Work to be Performed, identified installation of gas control systems and geomembranes are included. The geomembranes specifically needs a CQA on it; will that be done by GSAthe Engineering Consultant, or is that going to be something that will fall specifically to the Contractor?
A15. Both construction management and quality assurances are done either in-house with staff, or with our Consulting Engineer. If a Contractor has specific capabilities for this or other types of work, that will be considered in performance of work.
For us to have anybody do work on this and not being misleading, what I end up doing on these things is what I call the “kitchen sink” approach. We throw in pretty much everything. To date, with the Contractor, we have done either one. As far as the geomembrane, if we get into a situation with that it’s really going to depend on magnitude. I could see it going either way: there may be something that we have you hire an independent, the manufacturer may have somebody in mind, or we may go with the Engineer on that. Both of those are in there as “kitchen sink” and it’s just a little bit beyond the scope, but if I don’t add those in then I have a hard time, then you have to do something.
Q16. Can we assume that the Gas Control System and the Geomembrane would be designed by GSAEngineering Consultant, or will that be done by the Contractor or the Engineer?
A16. Remediation design is either done in-house or by our Consulting Engineer.
Either one of the Gas Control System or the Geomembrane would probably be designed by our Consulting Engineer. If we had a contractor who had some special expertise in that, or capabilities, that is certainly something that we would take a look at. We really do try to get the biggest bank for the buck.
Q17. In the past few years, has the majority of the work is dig and haul or dig and recycle or what has been the majority of the scope of work?
A17. In the last two years, probably the majority of the projects have been what we call scoop and run at ranged from the cleanup of small illegal disposal sites to . Go in and pick up the illegal waste, transport and dispose of that and then re-grade/re-vegetate the site. The other end of the spectrum on that is that we’ve done a couple of projects at old burn dumps. Both types of projects typically included excavation and movement and/or removal of material.