2-MIDA RFP for CERCLA Preliminary Assessment MEC UXO Probability Assessment v2.docx

Military Installation Development Authority (MIDA) Request for Proposal CERCLA Preliminary Assessment & MEC/UXO Probability Assessment

RFP Schedule

MIDA RFP for CERCLA Preliminary Assessment & MEC/UXO Probability Assessment Page 10 of 17

Table of Contents

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Project Overview

The Military Installation Development Authority (“MIDA”) is soliciting proposals from qualified environmental consulting and munitions response firms to perform a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) Preliminary Assessment (PA) and a Munitions and Explosives of Concern (“MEC”)/Unexploded Ordnance (“UXO”) Probability Assessment for land within Camp Williams, located at 17800 S. Redwood Rd., Bluffdale, Utah.

The purpose of this project is to evaluate a 16.69 acre parcel’s (Refer to Exhibit A - Map) historical and current use, identify potential environmental contamination or military munitions-related hazards, assess the likelihood of encountering explosive hazards, and provide defensible recommendations for additional investigation, explosives safety planning, or other appropriate action.

The selected contractor (“Contractor”) shall conduct records research, historical analysis, stakeholder interviews, limited non-intrusive site reconnaissance, and technical evaluations appropriate to each assessment. The contractor shall prepare separate assessment deliverables that clearly document the findings, limitations, conclusions, and recommendations in accordance with CERCLA/MMRP/DERP preliminary and probability assessment guidelines.

The work shall support informed decisions regarding the property's environmental condition, potential munitions-related hazards, and suitability for planned or reasonably anticipated future activities.

SECTION 2: SCOPE OF WORK

MIDA’s priority is to select a qualified contractor who can begin work as soon as practicable and complete the required assessments in the shortest reasonable timeframe while maintaining technical quality, safety, and compliance with applicable requirements.

2.1. Project Planning and Coordination

The Contractor shall conduct project planning and coordinate with the MIDA and Utah Army National Guard (“Guard”) representatives, property representatives, and other designated stakeholders.

The Contractor shall:

· Conduct a kickoff meeting to confirm project objectives, property boundaries, available information, responsibilities, assumptions, and communication procedures. Develop a project schedule identifying records review, interviews, site reconnaissance, draft deliverables, review periods, and final submissions.

· Identify required property access, security screening, background checks, escorts, safety briefings, and coordination with Guard Range Control or other installation personnel, as applicable.

· Identify anticipated access restrictions, military training conflicts, or other conditions that may affect the schedule or scope.

· Establish document control procedures and maintain a log of records reviewed, communications, interviews, and project decisions.

· Identify applicable regulatory requirements, technical guidance, and agency coordination needs.

The Contractor shall promptly notify the MIDA of conditions that may materially affect the schedule, cost, safety, or ability to complete the work.

2.2. Records Review and Historical Research

The Contractor shall conduct a records review sufficient to characterize historical and current land use and identify potential environmental releases and munitions-related hazards.

Records reviewed shall include, as available and relevant:

· Military installation, range, and training records.

· Historical records concerning ammunition use, storage, disposal, demilitarization, firing activities, impact areas, and other military operations.

· Historical aerial photographs, topographic maps, land-use maps, and other archival resources.

· Previous Preliminary Assessments, Site Inspections, remedial investigations, removal actions, geophysical surveys, munitions response studies, and related reports.

· Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) incident information and other available records documenting munitions discoveries or responses.

· Environmental database listings, spill records, permits, and regulatory correspondence.

· Property ownership, lease, transfer, land-use, infrastructure, and development records.

· Available information concerning adjacent properties when relevant to potential releases or migration pathways.

The Contractor shall document the sources reviewed, the relevance of the information, and any limitations resulting from unavailable, incomplete, or conflicting records.

2.3. Stakeholder Interviews

The Contractor shall identify and interview knowledgeable individuals, as available, to supplement the records review.

Potential interviewees may include:

· Current or former military installation and property personnel.

· Range Control, environmental, public works, safety, and security personnel.

· Personnel familiar with historical training, munitions use, storage, or disposal.

· Property owners, land managers, local officials, or other individuals with relevant historical knowledge.

· Regulatory or agency representatives familiar with previous investigations or property transfers.

Interview summaries shall identify the interviewee's relevant affiliation, interview date, topics discussed, pertinent observations, and additional records identified. Sensitive information shall be handled in accordance with applicable requirements and Guard direction.

2.4. Non-Intrusive Site Reconnaissance

The Contractor shall conduct a non-intrusive site reconnaissance where authorized and where access and safety conditions permit. The reconnaissance shall be designed to evaluate current site conditions and verify or supplement the records review.

Activities shall include, as applicable:

· Observing current land use, access points, structures, utilities, terrain, drainage, surface water, and other relevant site features.

· Documenting visible indicators of historical military use, including berms, firing positions, target features, craters, bunkers, disturbed ground, or apparent disposal areas.

· Documenting visible evidence relevant to potential environmental contamination or munitions-related hazards.

· Recording relevant observations using photographs, field notes, GPS coordinates, and maps, as appropriate.

· Coordinating site-specific safety measures, escorts, and access restrictions before entering the property.

This task is limited to non-intrusive reconnaissance. Personnel shall not handle, move, collect, dig for, or disturb suspected munitions or other potentially explosive items. Suspected items shall be managed under applicable explosives-safety procedures, including Recognize, Retreat, and Report (“3Rs”) principles.

No intrusive investigation, sampling, geophysical survey, anomaly investigation, vegetation clearing, or munitions removal is authorized under this scope unless separately approved in writing.

2.5. CERCLA Preliminary Assessment

The Contractor shall conduct a Preliminary Assessment (PA) for the site to determine whether past or current Department of War or military-related activities may have resulted in a release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, military munitions, munitions constituents (MC), discarded military munitions (DMM), or munitions and explosives of concern (MEC).

The PA shall be a desktop and limited field-reconnaissance evaluation. It shall culminate in a written PA Report that supports a defensible recommendation for No Further Action (NFA), a Site Inspection, or other appropriate CERCLA response consideration.

At a minimum, the PA shall include project planning, records review, historical research, stakeholder interviews as available, site reconnaissance where safe and accessible, source/pathway/receptor evaluation, a preliminary conceptual site model, and a PA Report with recommendations.

Work shall be performed consistently with applicable requirements and guidance for CERCLA site assessment, DERP implementation, and MMRP evaluations. The Contractor shall identify project-specific federal, state, tribal, and local regulatory coordination requirements during project planning, including but not limited to:

· Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as applicable.

· National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), as applicable.

· Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) program requirements, as applicable.

· Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) requirements and applicable service-specific guidance.

· Applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements identified by the lead agency or regulatory stakeholders.

The Contractor shall evaluate available historical, environmental, and field information to determine whether potential hazardous substance releases, threatened releases, or munitions-related concerns warrant additional investigations.

The evaluation shall address, as applicable:

· Known or suspected source areas and potential release mechanisms.

· Potential MEC, UXO, discarded military munitions (DMM), munitions constituents (MC), and other military-related hazardous substances.

· Potentially affected environmental media, including surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater, and air or dust.

· Potential exposure pathways and receptors, including construction workers, employees, residents, recreational users, groundwater users, ecological receptors, and other relevant populations.

· Current and reasonably anticipated future land use, including construction, redevelopment, public access, or property transfer.

· Relevant data gaps and uncertainties affecting the evaluation.

The Contractor shall develop a preliminary Conceptual Site Model (“CSM”) that summarizes potential source-pathway-receptor relationships and identifies uncertainties requiring further evaluation.

The Contractor shall provide a defensible recommendation for one of the following:

1. No Further Action (NFA): The available evidence does not indicate a plausible concern requiring additional investigation.

2. Site Inspection (SI): Available evidence indicates a plausible source or hazard that requires further field investigation, sampling, geophysical evaluation, or other appropriate activities.

3. Other appropriate action: Additional coordination, immediate safety measures, or another response is warranted based on the findings or applicable requirements.

The recommendation shall include the supporting rationale and identify any limitations affecting the conclusions.

2.6. MEC/UXO Probability Assessment

The Contractor shall prepare a separate, site-specific MEC/UXO Probability Assessment evaluating the likelihood of encountering explosive hazards during relevant activities at the property.

Under DESR 6055.09 and joint implementing guidance (such as USACE EM 385-1-97, Appendix Z), a Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) / UXO Probability Assessment is a formalized, objective, and data-driven process used to determine the risk level of encountering explosive hazards on a project site. It categorizes a site into one of three distinct probability levels—No, Low, or Moderate/High—which directly dictates the safety measures, personnel, and funding required for the project.

The assessment shall be performed by personnel with documented qualifications and experience appropriate to the assigned explosives-safety assessment duties.

At a minimum, the assessment shall:

· Review available historical military-use records, aerial photographs, range records, prior investigations, EOD incident information, and other relevant sources.

· Evaluate documented physical evidence, including known MEC/UXO discoveries, munitions-related debris, and previous munitions response activities.

· Identify historical activities or locations that may indicate potential explosive hazards.

· Evaluate site-specific conditions, including the nature and depth of anticipated ground disturbance, site access, erosion or other exposure mechanisms, and potential worker or public exposure.

· Apply the applicable assessment criteria and document the methodology, assumptions, evidence, limitations, and rationale supporting the determination.

· Provide the resulting probability category and explain its implications for the planned or anticipated activities.

· Identify recommended explosives-safety measures, personnel support, additional investigation, and coordination or approvals that may be required before affected work proceeds.

The assessment shall distinguish between historical evidence of munitions-related activities, confirmed discoveries, suspected hazards, and unresolved uncertainties.

The Contractor shall identify whether an Explosives Safety Submission (“ESS”), additional explosives-safety review, clearance, anomaly avoidance, on-site support, or other measures may be required based on the findings and applicable requirements.

The Contractor shall not represent that a probability determination constitutes clearance of the property or establishes that MEC/UXO is absent.

2.7. Final Reports and Deliverables

The Contractor shall prepare separate draft and final reports for the Preliminary Assessment and MEC/UXO Probability Assessment.

2.7.1. Preliminary Assessment Report

The report shall include, at a minimum:

· Executive summary and recommendation.

· Project purpose, property description, boundaries, ownership, and current and anticipated future land use.

· Assessment methods and applicable guidance.

· Records reviewed and historical research findings.

· Stakeholder interview summaries.

· Site reconnaissance methods, photographs, observations, and maps.

· Identification and evaluation of potential source areas, MRSs, AOCs, hazardous substances, and munitions-related concerns.

· Source-pathway-receptor evaluation and preliminary CSM.

· Data gaps, uncertainties, and limitations.

· Recommendation for NFA, SI, or other appropriate response consideration, with supporting rationale.

· References, supporting documentation, and appendices.

2.7.2. MEC/UXO Probability Assessment Report

The report shall include, at a minimum:

· Project and property description.

· Assessment methodology and applicable criteria.

· Summary of historical records and prior munitions-related investigations.

· Evaluation of known or suspected munitions-related hazards and relevant physical evidence.

· Site-specific factors affecting the probability determination.

· Probability category, supporting rationale, assumptions, and limitations.

· Recommended explosives-safety support and measures for planned or anticipated work.

· Identification of additional studies, submissions, reviews, or approvals that may be necessary.

· Maps, figures, references, and supporting documentation.

2.7.3. Supporting Deliverables

The Contractor shall also provide:

· Kickoff meeting agenda and minutes.

· Project schedule and updates.

· Records review log.

· Interview summaries.

· Site reconnaissance photo log and mapping, as applicable.

· Draft reports for review.

· Written responses to comments and a comment-resolution matrix.

· Final reports incorporating accepted comments.

Reports shall be provided in searchable PDF and editable Microsoft Word format. Tables and spatial data shall also be provided in their native formats where applicable. GIS deliverables shall use a mutually agreed format and coordinate system.

All findings and recommendations shall be traceable to the supporting records, observations, or technical analyses.

2.8. Personnel Qualifications and Technical Requirements

The Contractor shall demonstrate experience and provide personnel qualified to perform both environmental site assessment and munitions-related explosives-safety evaluation.

The Contractor shall comply with applicable personnel qualification requirements established by Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board Technical Paper 18 (DDESB TP-18), Minimum Qualifications for Personnel Conducting Munitions and Explosives of Concern-Related Activities, where applicable to the work and as required by MIDA.

Personnel who perform or supervise activities involving MEC, intrusive work in areas known or suspected to contain MEC, or other activities subject to TP-18 shall meet the applicable qualification requirements for their assigned duties.

The Contractor shall not assign personnel to duties for which they do not meet the applicable qualification requirements. MIDA may require additional documentation or review of proposed personnel before authorizing site activities.

SECTION 3: PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

Each firm submitting a proposal (“Offeror”) shall submit two separate files as part of its proposal: a technical proposal and a cost proposal.

3.1. Technical Proposal Requirements

The Offeror shall provide the information below as part of its technical proposal. The Offeror is prohibited from providing any cost information or data in this part of the proposal.

The proposal shall include the following:

3.1.1. Offeror’s General Information

· Company name

· Physical and mailing address

· Email and phone number of a primary contact person

· Number of years in business

3.1.2. Availability and Project Schedule

Provide a proposed project schedule that includes:

· Earliest available start date following contract award.

· Anticipated duration of the project and estimated completion date.

· Anticipated deadlines for the key milestones outlined in the scope of work, including site reconnaissance, draft reports, and final deliverables.

· Any anticipated scheduling constraints or factors that could delay completion.

3.1.3. Technical Approach

Provide a detailed description of the proposed approach to completing the Scope of Work, including:

· Methodology for conducting the CERCLA Preliminary Assessment and MEC/UXO Probability Assessment.

· Approach to records research, stakeholder interviews, and site reconnaissance.

· Any assumptions, limitations, or proposed deviations from the Scope of Work.

3.1.4. Qualifications and Relevant Experience

Provide the following information:

· Overview of the firm's qualifications and experience with similar projects.

· Two or three examples of relevant projects completed by the firm.

· Documentation of applicable personnel qualifications required under the Personnel Qualifications and Technical Requirements section of this RFP.

· Identify each proposed individual who will perform or supervise munitions-related or explosives-safety duties.

· Identify each individual's proposed position, responsibilities, relevant training, experience, and applicable TP-18 qualification level or category.

· Provide documentation supporting the stated qualifications, including training records, relevant experience, and certifications or credentials applicable to the assigned role.

· Identify any proposed subcontractors and their relevant personnel qualifications.

· Explain how the Offeror will verify and maintain personnel qualifications throughout the project.

· Identify any work proposed for subcontracting and describe how the prime contractor will ensure that all subcontracted work meets the requirements of this RFP.

3.1.5. Quality Assurance and Safety

` Provide the Offeror’s approach to the following items:

· Quality assurance and technical review of assessment findings and reports.

· Project oversight and coordination.

· Identifying and mitigating potential safety hazards during site activities.

3.2. Cost Proposal Requirements

The Offeror shall provide a cost proposal of the TOTAL COST of conducting the scope of work, with separate cost breakdowns for the CERCLA Preliminary Assessment and the MEC/UXO Probability Assessment.

The total cost shall be a fixed, all-inclusive amount covering all labor, vehicles, fuel, maintenance, insurance, administrative overhead, equipment, dispatching, and any other expenses required to perform the services described in this RFP.

SECTION 4: PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

4.1. Proposal Submission Instructions

All proposals must be submitted electronically via the Utah Public Procurement Place (U3P) on or before October 26, 2026, at 5:00 pm (MDT). Any proposal received after such time will be considered non-responsive. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to assure that its proposal is submitted to and received by U3P by the deadline specified above.

Offerors must submit two separate electronic files for each proposal: one technical proposal file and one cost proposal file.

For instructions on how to submit a proposal, please visit the U3P help center here: https://purchasing.utah.gov/training/for-vendors-training/

4.2. Questions

All questions regarding this solicitation must be submitted through the Utah Public Procurement Place (U3P) on or before October 20, 2026 at 5:00 pm (MDT). Questions submitted using alternate means will not be answered. Responses to questions will be posted on the U3P. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to regularly check the U3P website for updates to questions and their answers.

4.3. Addenda

MIDA may issue addenda to this RFP to clarify requirements, provide additional information, or modify the RFP. All addenda will be posted on the U3P website. It is the sole responsibility of an Offeror to regularly monitor the U3P website for addenda.

SECTION 5: EVALUATION, SCORING, AND AWARD

5.1. Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation committee will evaluate proposals that meet the minimum requirements using the following weighted criteria:

5.2. Technical Proposal Scoring

Each evaluator will assign a score from zero (0) to five (5) for each technical criterion:

· 5 = Excellent. The proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements and criteria.

· 4 = Good. The proposal addresses all requirements and criteria and in some respects exceeds them.

· 3 = Satisfactory. The proposal addresses all requirements and criteria in a minimum satisfactory manner.

· 2 = Unsatisfactory. The proposal addresses the requirements and criteria in an unsatisfactory manner.

· 1 = Poor. The proposal inadequately addresses the requirements and criteria or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information.

· 0 = Fail. The proposal fails to address the requirements and criteria or cannot be assessed due to missing information.

The evaluators’ scores will be averaged to produce a single average score for each criterion. That average score will then be divided by the highest possible score and then multiplied by the number of possible points, like so:

Points Awarded = (Average Weighted Score / Highest Possible Score) x Possible Points

5.4. Cost Proposal Scoring

The Offeror with the lowest total cost will receive all 50 points possible in the cost scoring category. Other Offerors’ scores will be calculated like so:

Points Awarded = Maximum Cost Points x (Lowest Cost / Offeror’s Cost)

MIDA reserves the right to conduct a cost realism analysis to determine whether proposed resources are adequate and to evaluate proposals based on their operational feasibility. Unrealistically low or high resource assumptions may result in a reduced or modified cost score.

5.5. Award Notice

The RFP shall be awarded to the highest scoring, responsive, and responsible offeror, meeting all stated RFP requirements.

If an Offeror is selected for the contract, the notice of award will be posted on U3P. Offerors may also request a copy of the notice of award by emailing Derek Brenchley, MIDA Purchasing Agent, at dbrenchley@midaut.org.

SECTION 6: OTHER INFORMATION

6.1. Cost of Proposals

MIDA is not liable for any costs incurred by Offerors in the preparation, presentation, or negotiation of proposals submitted in response to this RFP. All such costs shall be borne by the respective Offeror.

6.2. Protest Procedures

Any actual Offeror who is aggrieved in connection with the solicitation or award of a contract under this RFP may file a protest by submitting a written protest via email to Derek Brenchley, MIDA Purchasing Agent, at dbrenchley@midaut.org. The written protest must include the following:

· The protesting party’s name, mailing address, daytime telephone number, the signature of the protesting party or their attorney, and the date the protest is signed.

· A statement of relief sought, a statement of facts, and a recitation of reasons and legal authority in support of the protest sufficient to allow for an appropriate review.

The protest must be submitted prior to the proposal due date, unless the protestor was unaware of the facts giving rise to the protest. In such cases, the protest must be submitted within five (5) business days of the notice of award being posted on U3P.

The Purchasing Agent will review the protest and issue a written determination. This determination shall be considered final.

6.3. Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA)

All records related to this procurement are subject to the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA). Such records may, in some cases, be protected as confidential by the Offeror by complying with such confidentiality procedures that are set forth in GRAMA.

6.4. Reservation of Rights

MIDA reserves the right, among other things to:

1. Reject any or all proposals;

2. Waive irregularities or informalities;

3. Request clarification of a proposal;

4. Request and verify documents related to required licensure, permits, or operating authority, and safety records;

5. Confirm licensing and safety information with applicable state, federal, or local regulatory agencies;

6. Terminate the RFP process at any time;

7. Modify the RFP;

8. Negotiate with an Offeror prior to a final award;

9. Contract with multiple Offerors; and

10. Accept any proposal or proposals deemed to be in the best interests of MIDA.

image1.png