Sol_140A0524Q0002_Amd_0002.pdf

(x)

140A0524Q0002 x x

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 electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

A13

Sacramento CA 95825 Contracting Office

2800 COTTAGE WAY ROOM W2820

BIA PACIFIC 00013

12/18/20230002

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers 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

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

11/28/2023

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of Amendment 0002 is to publicly release all questions that have been asked on the solicitation to date and the answers provided by BIA.

All interested parties submitting a quotation must complete blocks 8 and 15A-C of all

Amendments AND INCLUDE the completed page 1 of the Amendment with their quotation.

All questions about this amendment and solicitation shall be emailed to jodi.zachary@bia.gov.

All terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Jodi Zachary

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

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

Amendment # 2 140A0524Q0002, Napaskaik Remediation:

1. Paragraph 1 of the Introduction states the purpose of the contract is to “conduct a preliminary investigation/site assessment and remediation …. in order to order to design a remediation plan.” Is the Does this project include remediation, including excavation, or just gather sufficient data to develop a plan for remediation at a future date?

BIA would like to generally confirm what has been reported and document any changes since; and specifically gather the pertinent information to design a remediation plan aimed at a formal site closure with the AK DEC—similar to a GAP analysis. Any contamination above regulatory limits documented would be remediated the next field season.

2. Will excavation be covered under a separate phase or should costs for excavation be included under the current scope?

Excavation will be covered under a separate phase, the following field season under a separate scope.

3. Due to laboratory turnaround times, it is unlikely analytical results will be available immediately at the conclusion of the site characterization. Should the bidder assume a second mobilization to excavate soils?

Yes, a second mobilization shall be assumed. GWM will require two sampling events in the first year (spring and fall). Excavation will be covered under a separate phase, the following field season under a separate scope.

4. Paragraph 2 of the Introduction mentions geotechnical investigation. This is not mentioned under Required Tasks or under Task 3. Should the bidder plan on mobilizing a drill rig to the site?

Geotechnical investigation will not be necessary.

5. A groundwater investigation was mentioned. Should the bidder include the cost of installing monitoring wells, if so, how many should be included in the cost. How many existing wells are on site that are in functional condition?

Yes, wells will have to be installed. Discussions with AK DEC during planning will help guide the GWM, however BIA assumes 5 wells in total—two uphill, two downhill and one at the central point. There were reportedly three temporary GWM wells installed, however they were removed.

6. If monitoring wells are required to be installed, are temporary wells acceptable?

Yes, permanent monitoring wells will be required to be installed.

7. Due to laboratory turnaround times, it is unlikely analytical results will be available immediately at the conclusion of the site characterization. Should the bidder assume a second mobilization to excavate soils?

See #3. Excavation will be covered under a separate phase, the following field season under a separate scope.

8. Task 3 - Are analytical samples expected to be collected during this effort or is this to be based on visual/physical inspection? If analytical samples are to be collected, is there a number of samples that should be included in the bid, and is there a list of analytes to be analyzed for?

Analytical samples are expected to be collected. BIA anticipates 12 soil and 10 water (five-spring, five-fall). Contaminants of concern are DRO, PAH and VOCs.

9. Task 3 – Is there an existing landfarm with capacity to accommodate the excavated soils or should the bidder include costs for the construction of a landfarm, including liners and equipment?

BIA is not aware of an existing active landfarm in the Village of Napaskiak. Site examination shall include the investigation of a suitable site and a cost estimate for construction.

10. According to Oasis’s 2012 Site Characterization the estimated 1,000 cy is based on ADEC approval of only removing the top two feet of soil. Has ADEC approved this? If excavation is to occur would it be limited to two feet in depth?

In 2011 soil up to 18 inches in depth was landfarmed in-place, then covered with geotextile, two feet of structural fill and 4 inches of topsoil. In 2012 the area was investigated due to the discovery of a drum pit and low levels of DRO contamination were found, but visual evidence and analytical results suggest that the drums were empty and cleaned when buried. One soil sample out of five exceeded DEC cleanup levels. Excavation will occur the following field season, after consultation with AK

DEC.

11. Does the 1,000 cy include clean overburden that may be present?

Clean overburden, based on field screening and AK DEC consultations, can be segregated, and replaced during return to grade.

12. Is this site “Napaskiak Former BIA School Day Tanks, ADEC file number 2433.38.004?

Yes, Hazard ID 25241.

13. What are the specific geographic boundaries of the requested Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation/Site Characterization?

The former BIA school property boundaries.

14. What are the property ownership boundaries for the project area?

The Lower Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) currently has the site.

15. Is this site separate from the Napaskiak Inc. Store Former Tank Farm site (ADEC file number 2433.38.003)?

Yes.

16. Please confirm: (a) in-situ landfarm work was conducted in 2013, (b) the landfarm was then covered with 2 feet of clean fill, (c) and in 2016 the new school was constructed above the in situ landfarm.

(a) in-place landfarming was conducted in 2012, (b) the in-place landfarm cells were covered with geotextile, buried under two feet of structural fill and 4 inches of topsoil,

(C) the new school was constructed on top of one of the in-place landfarm cells, however there was little characterization of the extent of contamination as part of the landfarming effort and did not include any areas to the north where the extent of contamination has not been delineated.

17. Please confirm: there are no TERO requirements as this work is not located on a reservation.

Contractors are responsible for contacting the Native Village of Kotzebue regarding TERO fees.

18. Other than local taxes, what other taxes will the contractor be responsible for under this contract?

It is the contractor’s responsibility to know the taxes, permits, licenses et al required for working within the local area or performance.

19. Will the BIA provide the contractor an exemption for materials sales tax?

No, contractors are not exempt from materials sales tax.

20. This tasked appears to be an ASTM Phase I?

BIA is not doing any legal transfer requiring a formal PH1ESA (or the associated extensive document/records review); however, it has been a decade since remediation work was conducted. BIA would like to generally confirm what has been reported and document any changes since; and specifically gather the pertinent information to design a remediation plan aimed at a formal site closure with the AK DEC—more similar to a GAP analysis.

21. Should this work be presented in the Task 1 work plan, or as a separate deliverable document?

One report addressing all the required information is adequate.

22. This task proposes the possible implementation of in-situ landfarming of 1,000 CY of fuel contaminated soil; however, it appears from the site file that this work was already done.

Is BIA aware that the in-situ landfarming method (limited to 2 feet bgs) did not, and if conducted now, would not address the groundwater pathway at this site; which is the regulatory driver for this site? Most of the contamination appears to be at 8 feet bgs.

In 2011 soil up to 18 inches in depth was landfarmed in-place, then covered with geotextile, two feet of structural fill and 4 inches of topsoil. In 2012 the area was reinvestigated due to the discovery of a drum pit when low levels of DRO contamination were found, but visual evidence and analytical results suggest that the drums were empty and clean when buried. One soil sample out of five exceeded DEC cleanup levels. AK DEC is the regulatory agency and BIA confers with them on regulatory matters. Any contamination above regulatory limits documented would be remediated the next field season.

23. This task includes dewatering and quicklime treatment of the sewage lagoon. Should site characterization work, including the sampling of soil and sludge for contamination before closure of the sewage lagoon as proposed?

Consultations with AK DEC during planning will determine any required sampling of the lagoon. The sewage lagoon was tested in 2012; however, BIA can find no evaluation since, except a note that the lagoon was still ‘biologically active’. BIA anticipates duplicating the testing done in 2012 with three locations/samples each for chemical oxygen demand and biological oxygen demand (six samples) before lagoon treatment.

24. Task 3 askes for groundwater monitoring. Are there specific existing wells to be included in the sampling of groundwater, or is this assumed to be new wells installed as part of the site characterization work plan developed as task 1?

There were three temporary GWM wells installed in 2011, however they were removed. Wells will have to be installed. Discussions with AK DEC during planning will help guide the GWM, however BIA assumes five wells in total—two uphill, two downhill and one at the central point.