Question_2_0003.pdf

1.General – We respectfully request a three-week extension to the proposal submission deadline to allow sufficient time to coordinate quality bids from subcontractors and to ensure responses to the Q&A are incorporated into the proposal response.

extension will be granted to May 1, 2026.

2. General – The solicitation identifies the acquisition as unrestricted in Block 10;

however, Block 20 (Schedule of Supplies/Services) states that this is an Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise (ISBEE) set-aside procurement.

Can the Government clarify the intended acquisition strategy and confirm whether this requirement is s 100% small business ISBEE set-aside? IEE form is attached and is ISBEE

3. General – The solicitation requires submission of relevant past projects completed within the past five years. Given that landfill inspection and closure practices and applicable regulatory frameworks (e.g., RCRA) have remained largely consistent over the past decade, limiting project experience to a five-year window may exclude otherwise highly relevant experience.

Can the Government consider extending the past performance relevancy window (e.g., to 7–10 years) to allow inclusion of older projects that are directly relevant to the scope of work? Granted.

4. General – The Period of Performance (POP) is identified as 120 days; however, given the number of landfills, their geographic distribution, and the scope of required fieldwork and deliverables, the current schedule does not appear achievable.

Can the Government confirm whether the POP will be revised to reflect the level of effort required, or whether POP extensions will be granted during performance?

Modification can be made to extend the period of performance at a later date.

5. General – Can the Government clarify whether any landfill sites are subject to seasonal access limitations or require special access permissions, escorts, or advance coordination with BIA, Tribal authorities, or local stakeholders? Contractor shall contact each of the School Principals, Facility Managers and Agency Facility Managers associated with landfill region.

6. Page 2, Task 1: Pre Submittals – Training Requirements Beyond HAZWOPER requirements, are there any additional training or certification requirements (e.g., defensive driving, remote/wilderness safety, communication protocols, or cultural/site-specific training)? BIA only references HAZWOPER. CPR and First Aide would be beneficial.

7. Page 2, Task 1: Pre Submittals Can the Government provide any known site-specific hazard information (e.g., known hazardous materials, physical hazards, or environmental conditions), or should the

Contractor assume unknown hazards at all sites? The Contractor shall prepare and submit to BIA a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120 for the protection of workers and the public. The HASP is to be developed under the aegis of the Hazardous Waste Operations and Response regulations based on the potential for unknown hazardous waste deposited at or near the site. It shall also include the safety procedures to address the presence of venomous reptiles and insects known to inhabit these remote locations. Workers must have certification in HazWOPER to provide additional assurance for worker protection

8. Page 2, Task 1: Pre Submittals The SOW requires notification to the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA) RCRA Enforcement Division.

Can the Government clarify the expected level of coordination and involvement with NNEPA, including participation in meetings, field activities, and site inspections? Notify the program of the upcoming inspection/evaluations and shall be prepared by the contractor for BIA signature.

9. Page 2, Task 2: Mobilization The SOW indicates that landfill files and maps will be available for review at the Navajo Regional Office during project execution.

Can the Government provide electronic copies of available reports, drawings, and historical data during the solicitation period? Access to this information is necessary to support development of accurate pricing and technical approaches.

Referenced in 2022 Monitoring Report

a. If this information cannot be provided, can the Government provide the approximate size and extent of each landfill to support development of the inspection approach, including assumptions for sampling density, number of intrusive investigation points, and overall level of effort?

10. Page 3, Task 3: Landfill Categories The scope of work states, "The Contractor shall conduct a geophysical/mechanical study (hand auger, direct push drill, geo-probe or other BIA approved method) to verify the depth of existing cover...".

a. Due to the large variances in cost of the methods described, can the assumed/recommended method for each landfill be provided? No assumptions but recommendations can be made.

b. Can the assumed number of core samples and/or rate of core samples (e.g., samples per acre) for each landfill be provided? No assumptions can be made.

c. Are there any limitations on intrusive investigation (e.g., maximum depth, refusal criteria, restoration/backfill requirements, or restrictions on waste penetration)? Verify the depth of the cover to assure it meeting the 40 CFR 247 and 258.60(a) closure standards.

11. Page 3, Task 3: Landfill Categories Can the Government clarify the requirements for utility clearance prior to intrusive work, including whether 811 locates are required and whether site utility maps or existing infrastructure information will be provided? Most landfill

12. Page 3, Task 3: Landfill Categories Can the Government confirm the applicable closure criteria, including required final cover thickness, for each landfill category (e.g., 40 CFR 241, 40 CFR 258.60(a), and alternative covers), or clarify whether the Contractor is expected to interpret these requirements from available documentation? Referenced in 2022 Monitoring Report

13. Page 3, Task 3: Landfill Categories

For sites closed using site-specific flexibility or alternative cover guidance, can the Government clarify the basis for evaluating compliance (e.g., as-built design vs.

guidance criteria) and what constitutes meeting closure requirements? Referenced in 2022 Monitoring Report

14. Page 3, Task 3: Landfill Categories For the five open landfills, can the Government clarify whether the expectation is a conceptual closure plan suitable for EE/CA planning, or a permit-ready / construction1ready closure design? Conceptual Closure Plan is acceptable.

15. Page 3, Task 3: Landfill Categories Can the Government clarify the expected level of detail for closure plans, including whether grading/drainage calculations, material specifications, and borrow source assumptions are required, or if a conceptual narrative with quantities and cost estimates is sufficient? Conceptual is acceptable.

16. Page 3, Task 3: Landfill Categories Can the Government clarify whether there are required assumptions for waste characterization and quantification (e.g., topographic survey, test pits, visual estimates, or standard tonnage assumptions)? Referenced in 2022 Monitoring Report

17. Page 3, Task 3: Landfill Categories Can the Government clarify the required mapping and GPS deliverable requirements, including:

a. The required coordinate system and datum (e.g., UTM zone/datum, latitude/longitude, NAD83 vs. WGS84) and acceptable accuracy standard; and

b. The required mapping deliverables and formats, including whether a USGS topographic map figure is sufficient or if GIS deliverables (e.g., shapefiles or geodatabases) are required? Referenced in 2022 Monitoring Report

18. Page 3, Task 3: Landfill Categories Can the Government clarify photo documentation requirements, including the minimum number of photos per site, required viewpoints, and any file naming or formatting requirements? Referenced in 2022 Monitoring Report

19. Page 4, Task 4: Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Report Can the Government clarify whether the EE/CA is expected to follow a specific EPA guidance or format, beyond what is outlined in the SOW? No

20. Page 4, Task 4: Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Report Can the Government clarify the expected number of alternatives to be evaluated per site, and whether alternatives are required for all sites or only those identified as non1compliant? 2-3 Alternatives are acceptable for all the sites.

21. Page 4, Task 4: Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Report Can the Government clarify whether the EE/CA should include a prioritization or ranking of sites (e.g., risk-based or compliance-based), or if the requirement is limited to presenting findings and cost estimates only? Findings and cost estimates.

22. Page 4, Task 5: Final Report, Copies, Data Management Can the Government clarify the preferred reporting format and structure, including whether deliverables should be prepared as individual landfill reports or a single consolidated report with site-specific appendices? Consolidated report is acceptable

a. If reporting is required by individual landfill, can the Government clarify whether locations identified as having multiple sites (e.g., Many Farms High School, Wingate Elementary School, Shonto Boarding School, and Navajo Mountain) should be treated as separate sites or a single site for reporting purposes? Individual reports are preferred.

23. Page 4, Task 5: Final Report, Copies, Data Management The SOW requires bi-weekly reporting of progress and expenditures. Given that this is a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract, detailed cost tracking is not typically required.

Can the Government clarify whether this requirement is intended to be limited to schedule/progress updates, and confirm that detailed cost reporting will not be required? payment will be paid based on progress made and invoice submitted.

24. Page 4, Task 5: Final Report, Copies, Data Management Can the Government clarify whether any kickoff, recurring progress meetings, or other coordination meetings are required beyond the optional bi-weekly MS Teams call?

Yes, there be prework meeting and scheduled bi-weekly meetings.

25. Page 4, Task 5: Final Report, Copies, Data Management Can the Government clarify the expected review and approval timelines for draft deliverables to support compliance with the requirement that final reports be due within two weeks of draft return? 5-10 business days

26. Page 4, Task 5: Final Report, Copies, Data Management Can the Government clarify whether deliverables should be submitted progressively (by site) or as a single submission at the conclusion of field activities? Consolidated reports are acceptable for the closed landfills and individual reports are for the open landfills.

27. Page 4, Task 5: Final Report, Copies, Data Management Can the Government clarify whether a final consolidated data package (e.g., GPS data, maps, and photo logs) is required in addition to the narrative reports? Highly recommended.

28. Page 4, Acceptance Requirements Can the Government clarify the acceptance criteria for each deliverable, including required content, exhibits, and signatures/stamps. Consolidated reports are acceptable for the closed landfills and individual reports are for the open landfills.