Exhibit_2_-_L0621R0006_Questions___Answers_0001.pdf

AMENDMENT #1: RFP No. 140L0621R0006

Alaska Legacy and Abandoned Well Remediation-

EXHIBIT 2--QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Fifty-five questions regarding the subject RFP were received. Responses to all questions received by 5/26/2021 are included in this Amendment 01 to the RFP. The questions are organized by RFP document and are sequenced in the reading order of each document.

RFP Document

Q1. Due to the complexity of the requirement to include the seed task order, can the due date be extended?

Response: The proposal deadline has been extended to June 22, 2021 at 2:00pm MDT.

Q2. Can the Proposal Due Date be extended?

Response: The proposal deadline has been extended to June 22, 2021 at 2:00pm MDT

Q3.- Who was the incumbent for this legacy well requirement?

Response: Previous contractors for similar requirements are: Olgoonik Construction Services, LLC (L16PC00005) and Marsh Creek, LLC, (L16PC00003).

Q4. What is an ISBEE and who qualifies?

Response: An Indian economic enterprise (IEE) means any business activity owned by one or more Indians (an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe or “Native” as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) or Indian tribes ( includes any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporations) that is established for the purpose of profit provided that: the combined Indian or tribal ownership must constitute not less than 51 percent of the enterprise;

the Indians or Indian tribes must, together, receive at least a majority of the earnings from the contract; and the management and daily business operations of an enterprise must be controlled by one or more individuals who are members of an Indian Tribe. To ensure actual control over the enterprise, the individuals must possess requisite management or technical capabilities directly related to the primary industry in which the enterprise conducts business.

The IEE must also be a small business for the subject NAICS code as defined by the Small Business Administration.

Q5. Is self-certification of an ISBEE acceptable? Are there any other certification processes for an

ISBEE?

Response: Self certification on your representations and certifications is acceptable.

Q6. Is technical assistance available for preparing government contract proposals?

Response: Free technical assistance may be available through https://www.aptac-us.org/ https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards

Exhibit 2 – RFP 140L0621R0006 AK Legacy & Abandoned Well Remediation 2

Q7. The RFP requires bonding for the 1st TO with a $10million order of magnitude. US Code Title 25, Chapter 2, Section 47a states the Secretary “may require security other than bonds required by sections 3131 and 3133 of title 40 when entering into a contract with an Indian-owned economic enterprise pursuant to the provisions of the Act of June 25, 1910 (25 U.S.C. 47), for the construction, alteration, or repair of any public work of the United States: Provided, That, the alternative form of security provides the United States with adequate security for performance and payment.” Are there other securities the BLM will accept to maintain an open pooling for this IDIQ?

Response: Due to the complexities and risks associated with this project, the bonding requirements remain as stated and have not been altered or waived.

Q8. Referencing clause 52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution and Completion of Work.

Paragraph “(a) Commence work under this contract within 14 calendar days after the date the Contractor receives the notice to proceed.” Is this when work on site is to begin or does this start date include the time needed for mobilization also?

Response: This includes all work described in the PWS.

Q9. Referencing clause 52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution and Completion of Work, Paragraph (c) complete the entire work ready for use not later than [__calendar days will be specified in each Task Order] after notice to proceed. The time stated for completion shall include final cleanup of the premises.” Because of the seasonal and weather restraints of demobilization of the site is this time considered or included in the “final cleanup of the premises?”

Response: Yes.

Q10. Referencing clause 52.216-19 Ordering Limitations, paragraph “(b) Maximum order. The Contractor is not obligated to honor- (1) Any order for a single item in excess of $20,000,000.00” Section B.3 states a contract Maximum quantity of services ordered by the government of $50,000,000.00 should the Order Limitations and Service Limitations be equal?

Response: No. The maximum quantity of services refers to the total contract value of the IDIQ contract. The maximum order refers to the maximum value of a single task order.

Q11. RFP Section L-5 Proposal Submittal, page 32 indicates “The offeror is to submit a fully compliant proposal to the following email address…”, however, the SF 1442 (RFP page 1) indicates “Sealed offers in original” is required by the due date/time. Are offerors to provide both paper and electronic versions of their response? If paper versions are required, how many copies are requested to be delivered to the physical address (SF 1442 Item 8)?

Response: Proposals are to be submitted electronically as stated in Section L-5. This is not a sealed IFB. Hard copies are not required and should not be sent.

Q12. RFP, Section L-6 , (d), page 33. Would the Government please confirm that 11" x 17" are counted as 1 page each?

Response: Yes, confirmed.

Q13. RFP, Section L-8 , Volume 2 , (b) Staffing Plan, page 34. Would the Government allow the submission of resumes of Key Personnel as an appendix? If yes, would you please exclude the Appendix from page count?

Response: Yes. Resumes may be included in an Appendix that will be excluded from the page count.

Q14. RFP, Section L-9 , Volume 3 (d), page 35. Would the Government please exclude the Project Schedule from page count?

Response: Yes.

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2Ftext%2F25%2F47&data=04%7C01%7Cjrodmansnyder%40blm.gov%7C2e50b999edd0436c47c208d91ef044dc%7C0693b5ba4b184d7b9341f32f400a5494%7C0%7C0%7C637574839563604722%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0&sdata=qfbMzx1tGcMAXJE6ykXm0vtFoDhQOWLd3vLZ63ua0Cs%3D&reserved=0

Exhibit 2 – RFP 140L0621R0006 AK Legacy & Abandoned Well Remediation 3

Q15. RFP, Section L-9 , Volume 4(d) Past Performance, page 35. In light of GAO rulings, please confirm that the Government will permit the use of sister company experience and past performance if a meaningful relationship is documented in a commitment letter?

Response: Yes.

Q16. RFP, Section L-9 , Volume 4(d), Past Performance, page 35. If sister company experience is acceptable, would the Government please exclude past performance commitment letters from page count?

Response: Yes.

Q17. RFP, Section L-8 , Volume 2 , (b) Staffing Plan, page 37 and Attachment 1-PWS, Section 2.4 Key Personnel. It looks like there is a discrepancy between Section L and the PWS. Would the Government please confirm which position is Key: Site Safety or Site Superintendent?

Response: Site Superintendent is considered Key Personnel.

Q18. Section M.2, Volume 1 Required Documents, page 37. Please confirm the Government would like us to insert completed representations and certifications in this volume.

Response: In accordance with provision 52.208-4(d), representations and certifications need not be submitted with the proposal unless the offeror makes changes. If changes are made, an amended copy must be submitted as directed therein.

Q19. RFP, Section M-2, Volume 4, page 39. Please expand the recent and relevant experience to beyond 3 years.

Response: Recent experience as defined on page 39 is required.

Attachment 1: Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Q20. Referencing Attachment 1-PWS, Section 1.3 Project Scope (page 49), it says that “…the Tulugeak well may not be offered as a Task Order opportunity under this contract.” Will a well schematic be provided for this well? Or was including the Tulugeak well intended to be within the scope of this RFP?

Response: Whether the Tulageak well will be included as a fair opportunity task order or as a separate, stand-alone requirement has not been determined. A well schematic is available in the 2013 Legacy Well Report.

Q21. Does the BLM intend to issue TOs in order of the Priority Well Ranking in the 2020 Legacy Wells Strategic Plan (following Tulageak and Iko Bay)? Will accessibility be a factor in TO selection?

Response: See Attachment 1, PWS Section 1.3 Project Scope. Accessibility is factored into TO selection.

Q22. Referencing Attachment 1-PWS, Section 2.4 Key Personnel (page 50) identifies four key personnel followed by four additional positions. Is it acceptable for an individual that is serving a key personnel role to also serve the function of one (or more) of the additional positions?

Response: Reference RFP L-8 VOLUME 2: FACTOR 1, IDIQ Technical Capacity, Paragraph (b) “Personnel”, pages 34-35. Also see response to Q17 in this document.

Q23. Is summer work approved?

Response: Summer work may be approved depending on submission of precondition items and planning documents (PWS Section 3.1 and 3.2).

Q24. Can we perform downhole work and abandonment in the summer?

Exhibit 2 – RFP 140L0621R0006 AK Legacy & Abandoned Well Remediation 4

Response: Summer work may be approved depending on submission of precondition items and planning documents (PWS Section 3.1 and 3.2).

Q25. Will the P & A work be done during winter or summer?

Response: It is incumbent upon the contractor to propose a schedule considering all seasonal constraints.

Q26. Is helicopter support in any way restricted?

Response: Helicopter usage in the NPRA shall adhere to State and Federal Regulations and must follow all permitting stipulations.

Q27. During the permitting, if federal, state, or local agencies push back or hold permits, will the BLM take the lead on obtaining approval?

Response: No. The BLM may facilitate communication and offer support, however obtaining permits is the contractor’s responsibility. Reference Attachment 1-PWS, Section 3.2.

Q28. Are there any restrictions due to migratory waterfowl and/or mammals?

Response: Yes, these should be addressed as described in PWS Section 3.2.4.

Q29. Will BLM expect all waste be removed from the site? Some of the waste may be hazardous, which is required to be shipped out of Alaska.

Response: Yes, reference Attachment 1 – PWS, Sections 3.6.2 and 3.7.

Q30. Referencing Attachment 1 – PWS, Section 3.8.2 P&A Effort, page 8 and Attach. 5, Section 2, Page 1.

There is a discrepancy between Attachment 1 – PWS and Attachment 5 sample task order concerning the rig requirements. Does the drilling capability need to be the full gauge of the smallest casing? For example on East Oumalik #1, does the rig need to be capable of drilling to 5,150 ft with a 10.625” bit, or would a 6.25” bit to 5,100 ft suffice?

Response: The rig proposed for all wells must be capable of reaching the depth of the deepest proposed plug. The conflicting statement in Attachment 5 regarding alternate equipment has been removed.

Q31. Referencing Attachment 1 – PWS, Section 3.8.3 P&A Effort, Page 9, Please clarify this imported fill material described as, “A mound of imported fill material shall be placed above the wellhead location to prevent accumulation of surface water that could potentially infiltrate into the plugged wellhole location.

Enough fill material should be used to assure a mound of fill will remain after the winter “fluff” subsides during the summer thaw.”

Response: Imported Fill is characterized as clean fill (free of weeds and vegetation) which is brought in to satisfy Onshore Oil and Gas Order #2 III.G.11.

Q32. In the case of undocumented collapsed casings and/or undocumented tubing and/or macaroni strings or thermistor cables, does the BLM intend to allow Change Orders?

Response: Yes.

Q33. Referencing Attachment 1-PWS,Page 9, Section 3.8.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Contamination Sampling and Analysis. The PWS notes that PCB testing is required. Is there a bound of scope for the procedure and clean-up standard to reach if PCBs are encountered? Change Order?

Response: This requirement is specific to fluids in the well bore. As stated in section 3.8.4 “If PCB contaminants are found, procedures for removal and disposal will occur in accordance with ADEC regulations.”

Exhibit 2 – RFP 140L0621R0006 AK Legacy & Abandoned Well Remediation 5

Q34. Referencing Attachment 1-PWS,Page 9, Section 3.8.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Contamination Sampling and Analysis. How would we structure the cleanup for all sites? Cost-plus based on results of surface sampling?

Response: Full remediation of PCB contamination at all sites is not included in the scope of this contract.

Q35. Referencing Attachment 1-PWS,Page 9, Section 3.8.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Contamination Sampling and Analysis. With regards to samples, do we use the state lab for evaluation?

Response: As stated in the paragraph cited, samples containing PCBs must go to a lab meeting the required accreditations.

Q36. Will BLM be the responsible party for reporting to ADEC for any spills that happen due to unknown pipes or material left downhole?

Response: All spill reporting is the responsibility of the contractor.

Q37. If the sites cannot be cleaned to meet Method 2 requirements and the site becomes an official contaminated site who is the responsible party?

Response: Section 3.6 and 3.7 state the surface clean-up objectives of this contract. It is anticipated final sampling reports will indicate further remediation needs beyond the scope of this contract.

Attachment 4: Price Schedule

Q38. In the RFP Attachment 4 Price Schedule (page 80), the inclement weather section references “P&A

Fish Creek #1 Weather Day”, is this intended to reference weather days during P&A of the 4 planned

Oumalik wells?

Response: Yes. The “Fish Creek” label is erroneous. It should be changed to reference the

Oumalik wells.

Attachment 5: Sample Task Order

Q39. The Oumalik wells description (page 82) Section 3 states that “the government may include an additional well site in the Task Order…at time of Task Order award”. Would the abandonment/cleanup of the Unfunded well: East Oumalik #1, be added on as a continuation of work for the planned/funded wells? Or would it be considered its own project during a different winter season?

Response: Ideally it would occur during the same mobilization and the other wells.

Q40. Will this project fall under NEPA since its managed by BLM? NEPA permitting could take 6 months or more.

Response: Yes, the Environmental Assessments have been completed. A hyperlink to The NPR- A Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision is provided in Section 4 of the PWS.

Q41. Is there a preferred access route that has been previously used to access the sites? If so, can the route and pad coordinates be provided to expedite the permitting process (to include archaeological, etc., clearances)?

Response: No.

Exhibit 2 – RFP 140L0621R0006 AK Legacy & Abandoned Well Remediation 6

Q42. Referencing Attachment 5, Sample Task Order Page 11 & 12 , East Oumalik #1, would the alternative of cleaning out below the casing and ensuring the casing is effectively plugged be considered?

Response: Alternatives that meet or exceed regulatory requirements may be proposed in the P&A design and procedures. Abandonment requirements can be found in Oil and Gas Onshore Order #2 III.G.

Q43. Referencing Attachment 5, Sample Task Order Page 11 & 12 , East Oumalik #1, The open hole on this well is 6035’. It is uncased from the 11-3/4” casing at 1100’. Water-based mud was left in the well, and with the foot or so of standing water in the cellar, it is likely that the wellbore is a combination of mud and surface runoff. The permafrost depth is something on the order of 900’. It is likely the casing is and has been filled with ice for almost 70 years. The PWS has a cement plug to 5100’. Placing this plug would require clean out to this depth. It seems likely after this length of time, the original wellbore has collapsed and could not be reentered, so effectively, this would be a sidetrack or re-drilling this well.

Response: Alternatives that meet or exceed regulatory requirements may be proposed in the P&A design and procedures.

Q44. Referencing Attachment 5, Sample Task Order Page 2, Is it a requirement for surface clean-up to remove the surface debris?

Q45. Referencing Attachment 5, Sample Task Order Page 2. Does the surface clean up include the refrigerant piping?

Q46. Referencing Attachment 5, Sample Task Order Page 2. If there is residual diesel in the refrigerant piping, it would more than likely be spilled. This could significantly increase the scope for this clean-up.

Would this increase in scope trigger a change order?

Response: No. Reference Attachment 1 PWS Sections 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.6 and 3.7.

Q47. Can BLM provide similar completed projects amount and categories of wastes encountered and removed for sites?

Response: The 2013 Legacy Well Summary Report has photo-documentation and descriptions of surface debris at each well site.

Q48. Referencing Attachment 5, Sample Task Order Page 2. What is the delineation of the area of clean-up?

Response: Each well will be different. Reference Attachment 1, PWS Sections 3.6 and 3.7. See also the 2013 Legacy Wells Summary Report.

Q49. Attachment 5, Sample Task Order Page 2. Is it a requirement to haul off all debris generated in this project?

Q50. Attachment 5, Sample Task Order. In the Wellbore Schematic (WBS), a “18” OD emissivity shield” is depicted as a red line with the call out “B”. Is it assumed that the wellbore abandonment will allow to leave and shield or cable in this annulus?

Response: Abandonment requirements can be found in Oil and Gas Onshore Order #2 III.G.5, an effort to remove any cable will be made if encountered within reason.

Exhibit 2 – RFP 140L0621R0006 AK Legacy & Abandoned Well Remediation 7

Q51. Referencing Attachment 5, Sample Task Order, Pages 3 & 4 - Oumalik #1. Is the placing of cement in this annulus a required operation?

Response: Abandonment requirements can be found in Oil and Gas Onshore Order #2 III.G.

Q52. Referencing Attachment 5, Sample Task Order, Pages 3 & 4 - Oumalik #1, The TOC for the 10-3/4” casing annulus in the PWS is drawn higher than the CWS schematic. It is above the 13-3/8” shoe.

Response: Reference Sample TO Page 2, Paragraph 5 describing the schematics. Drawings are not perfectly to scale.

Q53. Referencing Attachment 5, Sample Task Order, Pages 5 & 6 – Oumalik Core #2 What’s the objective in this scenario? This bore is filled with water-based mud that was allowed to freeze and has a fish in the bore with the estimated top of fish at 42’. The PWS has a cement plug to 150’. The chances are good that the likely path down this bore would not be the old bore but a new path, which would simply be a new wellbore that could be plugged as per the PWS, but have little to no effect on the original Oumalik Core #2 wellbore.

Response: The objective is to plug the well to regulatory standards. Reference Sample TO Page 2, Paragraph 5 describing the schematics. Abandonment requirements can be found in Oil and Gas Onshore Order #2 III.G.

Q54. Referencing Attachment 5, Sample Task Order, Pages 7 & 8 - Oumalik Core #11 - What’s the objective in this scenario? This bore is filled with water-based mud that was allowed to freeze. The PWS has a cement plug to 150’. The chances are good that the likely path down this bore would not be the old bore, but a new path, which would simply be a new wellbore that could be plugged as per the PWS, but have little to no effect on the original Oumalik Core #11 wellbore.

Response: The objective is to plug the well to regulatory standards. Reference Sample TO Page 2, Paragraph 5 describing the schematics. Abandonment requirements can be found in Oil and Gas Onshore Order #2 III.G.

Q55. Referencing Attachment 5, Sample Task Order, Pages 9 & 10 - Oumalik Core #12, What’s the objective in this scenario? This bore is filled with water-based mud that was allowed to freeze. The PWS has a cement plug to 150’. The chances are good that the likely path down this bore would not be the old bore, but a new path, which would simply be a new wellbore that could be plugged as per the PWS, but have little to no effect on the original Oumalik Core #12 wellbore.

Response: The objective is to plug the well to regulatory standards. Reference Sample TO Page 2, Paragraph 5 describing the schematics. Abandonment requirements can be found in Oil and Gas Onshore Order #2 III.G.