B09_Solicitation_Amendment_140F1B24Q0042_Attachment_6_0001.pdf
PDF 115 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Wichita Mtn. NWR Site Inspection AML
- Solicitation number
- 140F1B24Q0042
About this file
This document is a set of Questions and Answers (Q&A) related to Solicitation 140F1B24Q0042 for a Site Inspection (SI) of abandoned mine lands at the Wichita Mountain National Wildlife Refuge. The key details are:
The SI is required at 10 sites, with 2 sites already having existing PA (Preliminary Assessment) reports. The USFWS is requesting testing for VOCs and PAHs, despite the PA reports identifying only metals as the Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs). The SOW states up to 10 total samples may be collected, with the potential for more samples if justified by the contractor. The Q&A clarifies that samples can be collected in multiple mobilizations if needed to first inspect the sites and then develop the sampling approach. The Q&A also addresses how to handle sites that cannot be located during the site visit and sites without identified impact areas.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Wichita Mtn. NWR Site Inspection for abandoned mine land
RFQ# 140F1B24Q0042
Attachment 6 Questions and Answers
8 October 2024
1. A PA report exists for two of these sites (Bonanza/Copper Eagle Mine and Blue Beaver Creek Smelter). Are versions of PAs expected to be performed as part of the SI on the other 8? Yes
2. Why is USFWS requesting samples be tested for VOCs and PAHs when the PA report identified only metals as the COPCs? Sampling should be for metals only.
3. The SOW states to collect up to 10 total samples total. Are those supposed to be divided evenly across all 10 (1 per site)? No Or is it expected that some sites might not need to be sampled based on what is found at the 8 other sites or some sites might require more samples? Up to 10 samples per site. If the Contractor identifies areas of mine impact that are worth sampling, should those still be sampled if it results in more than 10 samples? Contractor would need to provide justification for additional sampling. Will those costs be covered under a change order? If needed and within scope and approved by the contracting officer.
4. We know SIs are needed at 2 of the 10 sites because it was recommended in the PA. If any of the other sites are not able to be found during the Site Visit, how should this be addressed in the SI?
Narrative for sites not being found should be included in the SI. If any of the other sites do not identify impact areas, should that Site be omitted from sampling? Yes
5. The activity type for Tasks 2 and 3 appear different in the deliverable chart compared to the titles of the tasks. Task 2 is first listed as the Site Visit but Task 2 in the chart is listed as the Work/Sampling Plans. Could this be corrected/clarified? Task 2 is for planning purposes and task 3 is for the site visit. Sorry for the confusion. It seems Task 2 is only for planning purposes only (Work Plan/SAP/Health and Safety Plan Prep), and Task 3 is for the Site visit and sample collection/analyzation.
6. Would the USFWS be open to two different mobilizations to the sites without PAs so that they first can be inspected and then a sampling approach discussion can be had before a sample is actually collected? Yes. This could be done over separate mobilizations or in between the days of the first mobilization.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .