Q_A_Crownpoint_Remediation_0002.docx

RFQ No. 140A0921Q0067 Former Crownpoint Remediation Project.

Questions received and the Government’s responses.

1. On the government price schedule, there are some quantities and unit prices give. Are these just examples or are we supposed to use these numbers in our proposal? (The unit prices are not very realistic in the current market) The vendor would need to provide the costs in the price schedule in response to the comment.

2. Is the New Mexico tax rate shown on the schedule correct? The New Mexico Tax rate is 5.125% instead of the amount provided on the bid schedule. The vendor can verify this information with the State of New Mexico.

3. Can we present an alternate method for the Phase III Site Assessment, such as high-resolution site characterization (HRSC)? Yes. We believe that using HRSC will give a more accurate conceptual site model, which will improve the risk assessment and allow more targeted remedial costs. Since the focus of the project is to determine the horizontal and vertical extent of heating oil and diesel contamination at the 6 locations, if this method is proven to assist with the remedial alternatives, BEM accepts this approach. However, cost would be factor with this method, as the funding is from DFMC and if additional costs are required, this will be requested and may affect the project.

4. Can you advise what type of drilling was used in previous mobilizations? Hollow Stem auger? ODEX? Geoprobe direct push? Due to the timeline for this project, I will need to check the file for this information, as there is no electronic report available. The information will be provided to the selected contractor.

5. It would be very helpful to know at what depth water was encountered. Again this would require information from the previous document, but I would determine 35 feet to 100 feet. This will require follow up for a more accurate response. The information will be provided to the selected contractor.

6. As the proposal due date is rapidly approaching, and there is a holiday weekend coming, is there any possibility of the due date being moved out? The response date will be extended.

1. Please provide the following reports, referenced in the SOW:

a. RMC Consultants – Final Report and EE/CA, dated July 2009

b. Terranext – Final Report, dated September 2012

c. EW Wells – Phase II Report, dated July 2012

2. Is a map available showing the specific locations of former USTs and “points of known contamination”? BEM report indicated these USTs were located at the buildings located in the attached report. If more specific information is requested, BEM will need to review the data from the three reports requested for more specific information. Former UST locations are available in the reports cited in #1 above.

3. The SOW states that “…the stent of groundwater contamination is still unknown”. Is this delineation included in the scope of this project? I am clear on your question? The focus of the project is horizontal, vertical and lateral extent of heating oil and diesel contamination and whether ground water is impacted at 5 former building locations stated in the SOW. This question does not make sense, but the purpose of the SOW and project is to address the “unknown” and investigate the extent of contamination.

4. Was asbestos and/or lead abatement performed prior to demolition or has any analysis for these or other contaminants been carried out on the debris piles to date? Another Division conducted the demolition of the project and most likely the sampling was conducted before the abatement. For safety concerns, BEM will review the DEMO report on any analysis conducted in the abatement phase. Again, information is available in reports noted in #1 above.

5. Is any construction debris buried or was it only piled on the surface? Is there any estimate of the volume of clean soil that may need to be placed for contouring? The construction debris is approximately 5000 cby. All the demo debris was removed to certified landfill. There is no estimate for clean soil.

6. The Cost Schedule cites debris volume (5,000 CY) and weight (4,800 tons) for the stockpiles. Is this the estimate that should be used in costing excavation/disposal? Yes, if this is cost estimated, unless the costs are higher, but that is CO call.

7. The Cost Schedule cites 56 soil and GW samples to be collected during the Site Assessment phase. How was this number determined? Is there a specific number of each type (soil vs GW) anticipated? Is there a prescribed number of boreholes to be drilled/sampled? Number of samples was based on previous reports noted on question #1.

8. The most recent nearby water table data available from USGS shows a depth to groundwater of approximately 480’ in 1982. Is a current estimated depth to groundwater available? No, this will be conducted by the contractor who is selected for the project.