B09_-_Requests_for_Information_-_Aggregated_Questions_0002.pdf

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) - QUESTIONS

Solicitation Number: 140FC225R0015 - PR Number: 0044009209 Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site

1. Should the Offeror provide all response items in 1 single volume or should Price and Offeror forms be provided in a separate volume from Factor 2 and 3?

2. A Past Performance Questionnaire is provided as an attachment to this RFP, however it is not listed as a requirement under Factor 3 Past Performance in Section L or M. Please advise if this is required.

2a. If a PPQ is required, would the Government accepts CPARS or previously completed PPQs in lieu of obtaining new PPQs?

3. RFP Section L.1.3 Checklist: Is this required to be submitted with the Offeror's proposal?

4. This project was previously issued under NAICS 562910, 750 employees but is now under a size standard of $25M. Is this correct?

5. Factor 3 Past Performance - Since this solicitation effort was delayed 2 years, would FWS consider extending the past performance window from 5 years to 7 years?

6. Will the response to RFIs amendment from the previous solicitation issuance be incorporated into this proposal and reissued?

7. The most recent documentation provided by the Government is dated April 2021. Could the Government please provide all potential bidders with any data that have been collected and documents produced for this site since April 2021, including under contract 140F0S24C0004?

Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site

8. Statement of Work, Page 2, Paragraph 2: The Statement of Work calls for remediation of on-site soils to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lead in residential soil regional screening level (RSL) value of 400 ppm. The new RSL for lead in residential soil is 200 ppm.

Is the RSL target 400 ppm or 200 ppm for this project?

9. Removal Action Work Plan, Table 2, Line 7: How should soil around trunks/root systems of trees larger than 10-inches in diameter within excavation areas be managed?

10. Proposal Submittal Schedule. In light of the extensive RFI, will the Government please provide a two-week extension of the due date for the proposal submittal?

11. Previous RFI. Can the government provide the RFI and Responses (Q&A) from the previous 2 solicitations issued for this work?

12. Project Funding. Is this project fully funded? If not, when is it expected to be partially or fully funded?

13. Permitting Requirements (Section 4.1 of the BBJ Removal Action Workplan) Section

4.1 states that “compliance with certain permit conditions and obtaining approvals for response actions will be required.” Please identify and provide a list of all applicable permits and approvals required for implementation of the removal action, including the issuing authorities.

14. Utility Clearance Records (Section 4.3 of the BBJ Removal Action Workplan) Section

4.3 discusses the need to perform utility clearance using public and private

Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site locators. Have any prior utility clearance scans or surveys been completed at the site? If so, please provide copies of those records or findings.

15. Wetlands Delineation (Section 4.4 of the BBJ Removal Action Workplan) Section 4.4 requires wetlands delineation prior to field work. Please provide any existing wetlands delineation mapping or reports for the area within or adjacent to the proposed removal limits.

16. Monitoring Wells (Sections 4.7 and 4.8 of the BBJ Removal Action Workplan) These sections reference multiple monitoring wells that may require sampling and/or decommissioning. Please provide a site plan showing the locations of the referenced wells (DG-1 through DG-10, UG-series, DZ-series), along with well permits and any available construction design details or well logs.

17. Tree Species Survey (Section 4.5 of the BBJ Removal Action Workplan) Section 4.5 recommends a tree species and diameter at breast height (DBH) survey to inform clearing decisions. Please confirm whether any prior tree survey data or reports exist. If so, please provide them for review.

18. Existing Stormwater Plans (Sections 4.9 and 5.6 of the BBJ Removal Action

Workplan) These sections reference the need for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention

Plan (SWPPP) and sediment and erosion control measures. Please provide any existing SWPPP or E&S design plans that have been previously prepared for this site.

19. Review and Approval Durations (Sections 4.1, 4.5, 4.10, 4.11, and 5.8 of the BBJ

Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site

Removal Action Workplan) Several required deliverables—including permit applications, the CMMP, LTSP, and tree/wetlands surveys—are subject to third-party agency review and approval. Please clarify how the government intends to account for the review and approval durations for these items, which are outside the contractor’s control. Specifically, how should the contractor structure the schedule and how will delays in agency responses impact the overall period of performance?

20. TCLP Testing Frequency (Section 5.3 of the BBJ Removal Action Workplan) This section recommends TCLP testing at a frequency of “1 sample per 250 to 500 tons.”

For proposal preparation under a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procurement, please confirm the required TCLP sampling frequency so all bidders can base estimates on a uniform assumption.

21. Revegetation Requirements (Section 5.6 of the BBJ Removal Action Workplan) This section notes that revegetation will be completed per DNREC guidance and that seeding/planting specs will be developed. Please provide any existing revegetation plans or confirm the species, seeding rates, or functional performance criteria that should be used for cost estimating.

22. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Section 5.6 of the BBJ Removal Action

Workplan) Please provide the required E&S control plan or design specifications so that materials, labor, and level of e�ort can be accurately estimated.

23. Fencing Design and Requirements (Section 5.6 of the BBJ Removal Action

Workplan) Please provide design requirements, specifications, and location

Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site drawings for any required fencing, including gate locations, heights, lengths, and access control requirements.

24. Grid Cell Sizing Criteria for ISS (Section 5.2 of the BBJ Removal Action Workplan)

Section 5.2 discusses using grid cells for ISS implementation but states that “grid cell sizing will be determined” based on a range of factors. Please clarify whether a standard or minimum grid cell size will be established for bidding purposes, or if contractors are to assume their own configuration.

25. Water Management, Treatment, and Disposal (Sections 4.7 and 5.2 of the BBJ

Removal Action Workplan) Sections 4.7 and 5.2 reference potential dewatering and treatment of water during excavation and ISS, but do not provide thresholds or discharge limitations. Please provide criteria for allowable on-site infiltration, discharge standards, and whether the contractor is responsible for water treatment or hauling o�site.

26. Invasive Species Compliance Measures (Section 6.1 of the BBJ Removal Action

Workplan) It is noted that field equipment must be inspected and cleaned of invasive species prior to mobilization. Please confirm if there are standardized protocols, inspection checklists, or documentation requirements for invasive species compliance.

27. Delineation of Work Area and Site Access (SOW Page 4) The Statement of Work indicates access to the site is controlled by the Refuge Manager and must be coordinated with a Service employee. Please confirm the scheduling process for

Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site site access, lead times for coordination, and how any delays will be managed within the project schedule.

28. Limits on Overtime and Working Hours (SOW Page 4) The SOW restricts work to 40 hours/week during business hours and states overtime is not authorized. Please clarify if exceptions can be granted for time-sensitive work such as reagent mixing, ISS, or weather-sensitive restoration activities.

29. Digital File Format and Submittal Requirements (SOW Page 4) The SOW requires digital submittals in editable formats. Please confirm whether MS Project schedules, AutoCAD files, and GIS shapefiles are required in addition to PDF and

Word formats.

30. Section 5 of the BBJ Removal Action Workplan Can the contractor propose a methodology that di�ers from that prescribed in Section 5 of the Removal Action

Workplan and Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs, provided the technical objectives of the project are achieved? Would the Contractor’s proposal be considered deficient or non-responsive?

31. Section 5 of the BBJ Removal Action Workplan The SOW specifies the use of

EnviroBlend®. Can the contractor propose an alternative to EnviroBlend® as soil amendment that will meet the technical requirements but may be less costly to the government? Would the Contractor’s proposal be considered deficient or nonresponsive?

32. Section M.2.0 Evaluation Factors. This section indicates that the evaluation of past

Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site performance will result in an overall assessment of acceptable or unacceptable.

However, Table 2 indicates Past Performance Ratings can be Exceptional, Acceptable, Unacceptable, or Neutral. Please verify how the four categories are evaluated or otherwise scored to arrive at an overall assessment of acceptable or unacceptable.

33. Deliverables (SOW Page 3). Is a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) required for this project?

34. QASP (SOW Page 5). The SOW Statement references "the performance standards outlined in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)." Will the Government please provide the QASP referenced?

35. Site Access. Currently, access to the site is via an unimproved road from Deep

Branch Road. Has the Government secured Right-of-Entry (or ownership) for any property that has to be traversed or accessed?

36. Site Access. If a haul road is installed on the currently unimproved access road, does it have to be restored to current condition, restored to pristine condition, or can it be left in place?

37. General. Is a potable or non-potable water supply (e.g., hydrant, etc.) on-site or nearby available for use?

38. General. Can chipped brush/trees be left on site and/or used as mulch?

39. Grubbing Depth, Root Mass Management, and Surface Definition per the BBJ Work

Plan (2021b), Sections 4.5 and 4.9, vegetation and tree removal is required as part of site preparation. We understand this will necessitate grubbing of root mass to depths potentially exceeding 2–3 feet below ground surface (BGS) in some areas to facilitate soil mixing and site access. We respectfully request clarification on the following related items to ensure consistent interpretation of the removal action scope:

• Given the historical deposition of lead shot and potential for root systems to entrap or retain contaminants, should grubbed root mass be treated as potentially contaminated media requiring landfill disposal?

• Alternatively, would a screening or sampling protocol (e.g., visual inspection, field XRF, or representative laboratory analysis) be acceptable to support o�-site recycling or green waste disposal?

• If no protocol currently exists, is it appropriate to handle root mass as an extension of the soil matrix and manage it accordingly through stabilization, sampling, and disposal with soil?

40. Definition of “Surface Soil” and Mixing Depths Post-Grubbing. The Work Plan calls for in-situ mixing from the surface to 18 inches BGS, but grubbing may disturb and blend surface and subsurface layers to depths of 2–3 feet. Should mixing depths be measured from the original pre-disturbance grade or from the post-grubbing surface, which may be irregular or lower than existing elevation? Additionally, does material brought to the surface during grubbing that originated from deeper than 18 inches BGS require treatment, or can it be treated as backfill or regraded material?

41. Are there any endangered, threatened, or sensitive species in the work area? (BBJ

Workplan, Table 1)

42. General. Are there any times where site access or site work is restricted based on fauna activity (e.g., bird or bat migration, breeding, roosting, bat hibernacula, etc.)?

43. Is this project, as planned, in compliance with this statement in the ARARs Table

(BBJ Workplan, Table 1): "The Subject Property is within the coastal zone and FWS will determine whether the selected response action is consistent with the Coastal

Management Plan"?

44. Is this project, as planned, in compliance with this statement in the ARARs Table

(BBJ Workplan, Table 1): "Given the project’s location within the Special Flood

Hazard Area (Zone AE), the removal action must comply with the Town of Milton’s

Floodplain Management ordinance within the town code"?

45. Is this project, as planned, in compliance with this statement in the ARARs Table

(BBJ Workplan, Table 1): "Given the project’s location within the Special Flood

Hazard Area (Zone AE), the removal action must comply with the Sussex County

Flood Map Ordinance 2834"?

46. Is there a borrow area nearby on FWS property that can be used to source backfill material? (Section 4.11)

Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site

47. Does FWS have a preferred or pre-negotiated agreement with any o�-site clean fill providers? (Section 4.11)

48. Are there any cultural resources in the work area? Please provide any results of previous Cultural Resources Surveys performed at the site or in the area. If Cultural

Resources Surveys have not been previously performed, is FWS has who will perform the required survey? (Table 1)

49. Does FWS have a preferred or pre-negotiated agreement with any o�-site disposal facilities? (Section 4.1)

50. Is temporary or permanent fencing only required during construction activities or for the duration of the Long-Term Stewardship plan? (Section 5.6)

51. General. Is manned security required when construction activities are not underway?

52. Would the Government please provide survey data for 40 soil-boring locations?

(Section 2.4)

53. Would the Government please provide survey data for perimeters of work areas detailed on Figure 3?

54. Would the Government please provide survey data for location & list of monitoring wells for decommissioning? (Section 4.8)

55. Would the Government please provide well construction drawing for well decommissioning? (Section 4.8)

56. Could the Service confirm that the only restoration planting requirement is a one-time seeding with a native grass mix?

57. Has the cultural/archaeological survey been completed for the site? If so, can the Service share the findings?

58. Should the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment B08 - Past Performance Questionnaire) be completed for Section L.2.1.4 (Evaluation Factor 3 – Past Performance;

Pg 39), or does the requirement to "provide a list of at least three but no more than five references for similar work completed by your firm within the last 5 years" suffice? Please clarify whether the questionnaire is required, as specific instructions for Attachment B08 are not provided in the solicitation.

59. Please confirm that a bald eagle nest survey or any other biological survey is not required. Please advise if there are any other known restrictions other than hunting season and winter conditions.

60. The Q&A document from the prior solicitation (B09_-_ATT_17__- _answers_to_questions_07262023_0007) references a sketch showing site access via a new “road” and Parking Lot 2, but the sketch is not legible in the provided screenshots. Can the Service provide a clear map or coordinates showing the locations of the suggested new road and Parking Lot 2, and confirm whether these access and staging routes are still recommended for the current solicitation?

61. What is the anticipated timeline for field access after NTP, especially for wetland delineation and soil screening, considering seasonal environmental constraints?

62. Has DNREC set a schedule for the cleanup of the Broadkiln Sportsman’s Club (BSC) property? Is there any expectation of coordination or sequencing with this project? Or can the bidders assume that the work will be completed prior to NTP for this scope?

63. Can the proposal due date be extended by one week (until August 28th) to allow time for obtaining additional competitive pricing from subcontractors?

64. The proposal spec calls for treatment of up to 4% Enviroblend. If more than 4% is required to obtain passing TCLP results, who is responsible for those additional costs?

65. What are the weight restrictions on the roads to the site?

66. Will the project require bonding for potential damage to roads?

67. Is a bald eagle nest survey required?

68. What vegetation (seed, shrubs and trees) is required with restoration of the site? Please clarify seed mix required for stabilization of soils. If trees and/or shrubs are required, state species, quantity and size (tubular's/saplings/potted/DBH size of trees). Who is responsible for water maintenance and at what frequency?

69. Is wetland mitigation (per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and associated requirements included as part of the Scope of Work?

70. Please confirm that only preparation of the LTS Plan, and not implementation of the LTS Plan (e.g., post-remedial groundwater and surface water monitoring) is included as part of

Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site the SOW. If implementation is required, can the Service clarify how many rounds of sampling should be included for planning and budgetary purposes?

71. Can the Service confirm what, if any, substantive requirements of the ARARs have already been completed? If so, can the Service share any results/documents from previously completed cultural or archaeological surveys, for example?

72. Has an Environmental review through DNREC been completed? If permits aren't required, does the contractor need to complete any of the requirements in Table 1 – Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) of Removal Action Workplan and Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs.

73. The removal volume is uncertain and requires delineation. Accordingly, can FWS add the Variation in Estimated Quantity Clause FAR 52.211-18 and provide a bid item for Soil Disposal at a unit rate per ton. Tons are better than cubic yards as quantiles will be measured directly by weight tickets at the landfill and not require volume estimates and fluff factors for yards. The EECA indicates up to 8,282 cubic yards and estimates 1.4 tons per yard. Therefore, a unit rate line item for up to 11,600 tons for treatment and disposal at a unit rate would take out uncertainty and allow all quoters to propose on the same quantity.

74. Do contractors who will not come in contact with impacted soil need OSHA HAZWOPER Training? For example, surveyors or tree clearing contractors, assuming roots are removed by OSHA HAZWOPER excavation contractors.

75. The Site Restoration section of the Removal Action Work Plan states that temporary or permanent fencing shall be installed to restrict public access to the disturbed areas.

However, the EE/CA states that the removal action will achieve unrestricted future land use. Is fencing needed after the removal action is complete? If yes, does FWS prefer temporary or permanent fencing, and should the fencing exactly follow the site outline to include the excavation boundary and 2003 remediation area? Would orange construction fence suffice?

76. Our understanding from the RFP and the Removal Action Work Plan is that a cultural resources survey will be included in this contract. Can you please clarify if the cultural resources survey should be included in our proposal?

77. The northern portion of the site could not be delineated in 2017 due to access limitations. What were the access limitations, and will the limitations preclude future sampling or removal actions?

78. Is area 3 included in the volumes of area needed to be remediated? If not how will this area be addressed after delineated?

79. Can the shape files for Figure 1, 2, & 3 be provided for preparation of our proposal?

80. Is an erosion and sediment control plan required to be prepared and approved by the State of Delaware?

81. Considering the soil fails TCLP in some areas, which classifies it as a hazardous waste, are all on site workers required to be trained under OSHA 1910.120 for HAZWOPER

82. Please define access into the site for dump trucks.

83. Can the contractor improve (add gravel) the access road into the site starting at Deep Pond Road? If so, would the improvements need to be removed at the completion of site work?

84. Can the former trap range including the former remediation area be used as a staging area for equipment and materials?

85. A lot of trees are located in areas of soil removal, which will likely die after the roots are cleaned. Many trees over 10” will need to be removed for equipment access due to spacing between trees, who decides which trees go vs stay if over 10” dbh?

86. It was previously answered that the contractor was to not excavate in standing water, is that still applicable?

87. What is the depth of new topsoil to be added under restoration?

88. Are any as-built plans required upon completion?

89. It was previously stated that any discharge/movement of water during excavation did not need treatment, is that still applicable?

90. Will the groundwater sampling/surface water sampling only require total lead as the analysis?

91. Is it acceptable to flush cut the stumps and leave in place?

92. Is it acceptable to chip the trees and broadcast the chips on site?

93. Does the lab performing the analysis for groundwater and surface water need HSCA certification?

Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site

94. Conduct a supplemental lead soil screening event to delineate the extent of contamination in the northern portion of the wetland, is this area 3 in Figure 3 SITE PLAN

WITH REMOVAL ACTION

EXTENTS AND DEPTHS of the 2021 Removal Action Plan,

95. Has a grid pattern been established already?

96. Can that selected contractor use other means and methods other than what is listed in the SOW?

97. The Removal Action Work Plan, 4.11 states “Prior to bringing fill material to the Subject Property, a thorough review of the source history and operations and supplemental analytical testing (if needed) will be conducted.” Can you please advise if testing will be required, and if so, what analysis would be required? Furthermore, If the supplier can provide a letter certifying this material came from a virgin source, would the testing still be required?

98. The Removal Action Work plan , 4.7 Groundwater and Surface Water Quality states "Testing Surface water and groundwater sampling Specific analytical parameters for sampling before and during the on site activities should be determined in cooperation with the DNREC Division of Watershed Stewardship. What are the parameters?

99. Are alternate treatment products acceptable other than Enviroblend if they are determined to be effective through the treatability study?

100. Can the Questions and Answers from the 2023 solicitation be incorporated into this solicitation, or re-answered?

Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site

101. This project was previously awarded under 140F0S23Q0021, what information can be provided regarding why to opportunity is being rebid?

102. Can the government provide a bid tab for the previous opportunity?

103. Is there any page limit for submittal section: Project Work Plan?

104. Regarding Q / A from 2023 solicitation: Q3. Is wetland mitigation (per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and associated requirements included as part of the Scope of Work?

A3. Wetland mitigation is not required nor part of the SOW as determined by the EE/CA's Applicable and Relevant or Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) analysis. Activities undertaken entirely on a CERCLA site by authority of CERCLA as approved or required by EPA are not required to obtain permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Per the EE/CA ARAR's: The following conditions/practices must be followed: any structure or fill shall be maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety; erosion and siltation controls must be used and maintained during construction and all fills must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date;

heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbances; no activity conducted under a nationwide permit may jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for designation o Contractor does not have to mitigate wetlands per Clean Water Act but do have to use mats for heavy equipment per CERCLA if the “forested wetland” is considered a wetland per definition?

105. Regarding Q / A from 2023 solicitation: Q5. Can the Service confirm what, if any, substantive requirements of the ARARs have already been completed? If so, can the Service share any results/documents from previously completed cultural or archaeological surveys, for example? A5. The Service is currently in the process of contracting for an Archaeological Survey.

o Please provide the Archaeological Survey that was in process in 2023

106. Regarding Question 6 in Addendum 4 (2023 solicitation): 6. What type of wetland habitat is preferred after site restoration? The site is a forested wetland and should be restored as a forested wetland.

o What does this mean for soils and revegetation of the site?

107. Road improvements for heavy equipment and trucks

Do access roads for equipment delivery and dump traffic have to be removed at the end of the project and graded/seeded back to original condition?

108. Expected Tree Preservation Standards

Can USFWS confirm DBH limits for tree removal and whether trees below 10” DBH may be cleared without mitigation, or will permits/approvals be needed?

109. Unit Pricing for Remedial/Removal Volumes in Excess of Estimated Volumes in RAWP

The solicitation requests LS pricing as a firm fixed price project total for submittals. Can unit rates for remediation/removal be included in the case that characterization and delineation sampling reveal that volume contaminated soil volume estimate exceeding what is listed in the RAWP?

110. Waste Classification and Disposal Path

Will USFWS accept contractor-provided TCLP and SPLP results (per BBJ Group treatability studies) for determining waste stream classification, or will sampling protocols be defined by DNREC or another regulator?

111. Clean Fill Material Requirements

Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site

Will a specific source of clean fill be pre-approved by USFWS, or is the contractor responsible for sampling, approvals, and transport logistics? What is the expected match for grain size and organic content?

112. Allowable Staging Areas

Is there designated space within the Refuge for staging soil, clean fill, equipment, and parking? If so, can USFWS provide site maps or boundaries?

113. Site Access Coordination

Is the Refuge Manager (Kate Toniolo) the only authorized access coordinator, and what lead time is required for equipment deliveries and field crew entry?

114. Seasonal Work Restrictions

Are there any timing limitations due to wildlife activity, nesting, or wetland access restrictions (e.g., no work in spring/summer months)? If so, when is the earliest anticipated

NTP?

115. Wetland Access Methodology

Are timber mats or temporary access roads allowed in the wetland area, or are there restrictions on ground disturbance beyond identified excavation zones?

116. Air Monitoring and Dust Suppression

Given the lead levels and disturbed soils, will continuous air monitoring be required? Are water trucks or other dust suppression techniques acceptable within the Refuge?

117. Solicitation # 140FC225R0015, appears to be the same or very similar to the award of Contract 140F0S24C0004 to BBJ Group LLC, a small business environmental consultancy, to provide lead shot abatement services at the Prime Hook National Wildlife

Project Title: DE-CDC-Prime Hook NWR Lead Shot Site

Refuge in Milton, Delaware. The$3,907,000.00 contract, which has a completion date of September 26, 2025, includes tasks such as obtaining permits, conducting site assessments, implementing remediation, and developing a long-term stewardship plan.

The contract was awarded on March 21, 2024. Was this contract not completed? Based on information provided to Solicitation # 140FC225R0015, the Government has determined that this same contractor (BBJ Group) can submit once again. Does the Government consider that BBJ Group has an unfair advantage?

118. Section 4.5 of the Removal Action Workplan states “Removal of selected vegetation and trees is required as part of the Removal Action.” What is the ultimate disposition for felled trees, fallen trees, brush, undergrowth once removed?

119. Section H.9.0 UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL of the Solicitation document describes access to the work area. Does the Government have right of entry to the surrounding properties for road building if necessary?

120. Is it the contractor’s responsibility to secure a wetlands permit? Section 4.1 of the Removal Action Workplan states: “Obtaining permits for on-site actions conducted under CERCLA area is required…”

121. On page 2 of the Statement of Work, it states “conduct a lead soil screening event to delineate the extent of contamination in the northern portion of the wetland,”. Can you provide the area for further screening, the square footage, frequency of screening, and what level of lead to determine for stabilization?

122. Is there any type of wetland habitat preferred after site restoration?

123. Is there a price submission schedule? Solicitation mentions Base and Option items and Line Items, so bidders will need the price schedule. [“L.2.1.2 EVALUATION FACTOR 1, PRICE. The Respondent shall remit a completed price schedule (Section B). The Respondent shall enter unit prices and extended totals for each item listed in Section B.”]

124. Please provide a 14 day due date extension after all the questions have been answered to allow adequate time for bidders to incorporate answers into their final pricing.

125. Please extend the Q&A deadline a week after the bid qty schedule has been provided.

126. Section 5.6 of the Removal Action Workplan states “Final restoration details will be reviewed by the FWS for consistency with future land use plans.” Please provide these details.

127. Per Section 4.7 of the Removal Action Workplan, does the Government have a list of wells and surface water sampling locations that should be sampled during the baseline sampling event?

128. Evaluation Factor 3 states “....similar work completed by your firm within the last 5 years.” Please expand this to “....within the last 7 years.”

129. Section L.2.1. Please confirm that one proposal volume is required and that Cost and Technical do not need to be submitted separately.

130. Section 4.8 of the Removal Action Workplan states: “Several monitoring wells were observed within the Removal Action extents projected in the EE/CA and at least eight monitoring wells (DG-1, DG-4, DG-5, DG-7, DG-8, DG-9, DG-10, and UG-2) may require decommissioning...” For pricing purposes, can the number of wells to be decommissioned be confirmed?