QA_Responses_0001.docx

Questions & Answers for 140A1622Q0118, Water System Assessments for BIE #2 Thank you all for the excellent questions and our apologies for some of the errors in the SOW, particularly the list of systems/facilities. While we hope these answers clarify, we welcome additional questions up to August 16 if there is any remaining confusion.

1. In the SOW Task 7.1 stated: This total is approximately 1,360 workhours for work order entry covering all 34 sites. Q: Please clarify if this is a typo and meant to say 38 sites and if the total approximate workhours are 1520 hours?

A: This was an error. The section is meant to say 38 and we neglected to include the other facility sites. Note the change to 268 sites, which is explained in the answer to question #2. The section has been revised to say:

“We anticipate 5-10 work order entries needed per site with an IA-owned water system, requiring approximately 40 workhours per site (including gathering cost estimates and site information, as needed). This totals approximately1,520 workhours for work order entry covering all 38 sites. We estimate an additional 2 hours per site for the IA-owned facilities that do not have their own water system but may require replacement of a component. 2 hours * 268 sites = 536 hours.

1,520 hours plus 536 hours = approximately 2,056 hours (~52 weeks).

2. In the SOW it states: Indian Affairs (IA) has 38 Public Water Systems (PWS) owned and operated by Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or by Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) (see Attachment A – List of Water Systems). However, Attachment A has more than 38 sites listed. Out of the list of systems in Attachment A, which 38 systems will be targeted in this project? If it is not possible to have the list of target systems, is it possible to have the states of the target systems? Can the applicants propose systems??

A: This was an oversight – Attachment A also erroneously included some systems that are covered under a separate contract. A revised Attachment A is included now with all IA-facilities and the 38 water systems highlighted. With these corrections, there are still 38 IA-owned water systems but there are approximately 268 other IA-owned facilities NOT on an IA-owned water system. However, be aware there may be small changes in the list regarding the number of facilities currently provided due to possible decommissioning or conversions to tribal leases.

3. Is BIA amenable to use methods other than sampling to identify the sources of lead??

A: Absolutely. Please propose any methods you feel would be helpful. NOTE: the EPA recently released Guidance for Developing and Maintaining and Lead Service Line Inventory. This was not included in the original SOW list of references as it was not published but would now be an important resource. It describes potential methods to identify lead and provides a template which we would like to see used for generating inventories at the 38 IA-owned public water systems. It has been added to the revised SOW.

4. Who will be responsible for the laboratory costs? Should these costs be included in the applicant’s budget?

A: Yes, laboratory, shipping, and handling costs for any samples taken will be the responsibility of the contractor.

5. What number of IA-owned water system components exist at each site (i.e. both the 38 PWS owned and operated by BIE/BIA, and IA-Owned Facilities?

A: We do not have the exact number of components per site. To give a sense of system size and complexity, we are including information from the EPA database for each of the 38 IA-owned systems. For sampling purposes, the number of components may not dictate the number of samples. Construction date, component records, visual inspection, and previous knowledge or sampling results may all influence whether samples should be taken. Therefore, we estimated 20 samples per site but can work with contractor if some sites need more and some sites need fewer samples.

6. Which of those facilities listed in Attachment A are the 38 owned/controlled IA systems (Section 1) versus the other 320 IA owned facilities (Section 2)?

A: This is explained in the answer to Question #2. The Attachment and number of sites have been corrected in the revised SOW.

7. For Sites in Attachment A w/out any buildings, are site visits needed? Are there IA-owned water systems actually there?

A: Good question. We have revised the list of sites to highlight in Orange those sites that have zero operating buildings. These will likely not need an assessment. However, some sites with no “Operating” buildings may still have other structures like storage, treatment, and distribution components – those sites were left unhighlighted. For the IA-owned water systems, deficiencies identified in prior sanitary surveys reveals that some water sources do not contain a structure or well house.

We are open to modifications if fewer or more site visits are needed than the number estimated in this contract (38 sites with IA-owned water systems and associated facilities and 268 sites with only IA facilities). We also anticipate that nearly half of the 38 IA-owned water systems are consecutive water systems where water is purchased from non-IA owned water systems that may or may not be treated before distribution.

8. There are sites within Attachment A that were included in the solicitation 140A1622Q0048. If site assessments have already been completed, should these be performed again?

A: This was an oversight. Those systems/facilities have been removed from the list.

9. There are sites within Attachment A to the SOW that are included in the current Tribal One Architecture and Engineering, LLC contract. Is this an error?

A: Yes. See answer to Question #8.

10. Can you provide any additional data fields within Attachment A that would assist with estimating the effort, such as number of related infrastructure assets, number of occupants, Facility use (offices, housing, schools, detention centers), etc.?

A: We are now including information from the EPA database for the 38 sites with IA-owned water systems and associated facilities – in Attachment A. This includes information on water source, number of occupants, and regulatory oversight. We also added several columns in Attachment B, the list of 268 other sites. There is information on housing, if applicable, under the “Quarters” columns. Other than these data, we do not have more to offer for the solicitation but can pull needed information for each site (e.g., site drawings, floor plans) upon request once a contract has been awarded.

11. Task 3.3, how many locations should we assume will require a PFAS Memorandum?

A: The 38 sites with IA-owned systems. We are not responsible for sampling or reporting PFAS presence in water systems that are not IA-owned. We would like a PFAS sample for each source (well, surface reservoir, etc.). Nearly half of the 38 IA-owned water systems are consecutive systems where IA does not own the source. Because of that, we believe that planning for 38 sample locations for PFAS will account for sites that have more than one source that needs sampling.

12. Task 3.4, how many locations should we assume will require documentation of the prior Lead Service Line Inventory?

A: A full LSL Inventory is only required for the 38 sites with IA-owned water systems. The inventories for those sites should follows guidance/template outlined in the “EPA Guidance for Developing a Service Line Inventory” (see link in Standards and Specifications section in SOW).

For the other 268 sites, we do ask the contractor to list of any confirmed or suspected lead components based on the records review, investigation, sampling, etc. performed by the contractor. The purpose of this list is to gather cost estimates and corrective actions needed to eliminate sources of lead in drinking water in IA facilities. The contractor is free to propose a simple format for listing this information, which does not need to be in a full “inventory” per the EPA guidance mentioned in the paragraph above. We added language to this effect in SOW Objectives Section and Task 6.1.

13. You noted that solicitation 140A1622Q0048 is similar but separate from this solicitation. It does look like BIA made an award to the Tribal One-Tetra Tech joint venture – are they completing their scope of work or is this solicitation intended to complete the scope they were awarded?

A: This is a separate requirement. The work is similar but the systems/facilities are different. Per answers to Questions #8 and #9, we mistakenly included systems/facilities from the prior solicitation.

14. I was not able to identify the list of sites where the 38 water systems in attachment A. Is it possible to revise the attachment and have two lists – one with the list of BIA Water Treatment Systems, and another with the list of sites where lead and copper exposure in drinking water evaluations are required?

A: Yes, we have done this.

15. Since PFAS analysis is an expensive item and you are not providing a list of water systems which have been tested for PFAS – would it be best to estimate cost assuming all systems require this test leave the PFAS analysis costs out and indicate that once final analytical costs are estimated that a change order to cover those costs will be issued?

A: No, we would like candidates to include an estimate of PFAS costs in their proposal. We anticipate that nearly half of the 38 IA-owned water systems are consecutive water systems where source water is purchased from non-IA owned water systems, and where PFAS sampling will not be accomplished. However, some water systems have more than one source to be sampled. We estimate that 38 PFAS sample locations will be needed. Candidates may use the number 38 in their cost estimation.

16. Is there any desire to collect and analyze for PFAS at any/all of the 320 sites where lead and copper evaluations are being completed?

A: No, per answer to question #11 above, PFAS sampling is only required for IA-owned water sources.

17. We currently have two staff members with access to the IA-FMS Maximo system for work being done on another BIA contract. If the optional task to enter data into Maximo is authorized, will we be able to use our current staff to execute this work or do you anticipate the need for a discrete, project specific staff member to do this work?

A: Yes, you may use existing staff. Those staff must be available to enter data and work orders into the system, but other team members can prepare the necessary information for them as needed.

18. In Appendix A – there appears to be some double entry on the number of facilities, for example the first line is for the Blackfeet Agency listing 53 total occupied facilities. However, further down the list there are separate listings for the Blackfeet Dorm and another for the Detention Facility. Can you have someone at Segue or DFMC verify the list to make sure we are not double counting buildings to be sampled.

A: Yes, we did that with DFMC. We have revised our site list in Attachments A and B. The three sites mentioned in the question are indeed separate facilities, although they are co-located. Some sites may be larger and independent, whereas some sites may fall under a “parent” agency and only encompass one building. Therefore, we hope the level of effort will average out for the purpose of cost estimation.

19. It would also be nice if we could get an entire inventory with building addresses this will help with our travel estimating. For example if there are 20 residences to be sampled and they are all in a subdivision that will take less time than sampling 20 residences that are spread ½ hr apart.

A: Attachment B has been revised to include more details on building numbers and addresses, where available. We do not have this level of detail for all sites for the solicitation. But once awarded, we can request access for one or two contractor team members to the IA Facility Management System (IA-FMS).

20. Also we are assuming that Segue will be providing updated floor plans for each facility that needs to be sampled. Can you verify that our floor plan updates for the education facilities which were made as part of our base year contract with DFMC to perform education space analysis have been uploaded into the system. We are finding that some of the floor plan data in the IA-FMS is a bit dated and we will need to understand what level of quality assurance will be required to verify each sample location in our sampling plan(s).

A: As far as we are aware, most facilities should have an updated floor plan in MAXIMO/IA-FMS. If the contractor can get them directly from Segue at no cost, they are certainly free to note this in their proposal.