Attachment 16 - Government Response to Questions - Virtual Site Visit.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 14 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA890323R0032
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
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
Sheet1 Attachment 16
SYNOPSIS QUESTIONS / RESPONSES
Optimized Remdiation Contract at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas Project Numbers: PRQE20XX7917, and PRQZ20XX7811 Qstn # RFP REFERENCE CONTRACTOR QUESTIONS
ANSWERS BY GOV'T
| 1 | PWS Section 1.1 paragraph 3 | It is stated that RCRA permit dated 8 August 2007 is up for renewal. Is the renewal included in the scope for this ORC? | NO |
| 2 | Site FT006 | The performance objective is SC in PWS Table 1. Please provide requirements for SC. How many years and at what frequency of groundwater sampling (annual, seminannual or quarterly) results below clean up goals would be required to demonstrate SC? | Reference Basewide GM Sampling Plan, Revision 2 or 3. Revision 3 is still pre-draft. |
| 3 | Site SS014 | PWS Table 1 shows performance objective as RA-O through the duration of the POP. What is POP for this site? Virtual site visit slides show performance objective as RA-O for 5 years. It was indicated by Mr. Knight that the site contamination is expected to be cleaned up in 5 years, i.e. COC concentrations below remedial goals achieved. Would the AF extend POP for this site beyond 5 years if COC concentrations are still above remedial goals after 5 years? | Reference PWS for this information |
Yes
| 4 | Site SS014 | Virtual site visit slides show performance objective as RA-O for 5 years. It was indicated by Mr. Knight that the site contamination is expected to be cleaned up in 5 years, i.e. COC concentrations below remedial goals achieved. Would the AF issue a modification to extend POP for this site beyond 5 years if COC concentrations are still above remedial goals after 5 years? | Reference PWS for this information |
| 5 | FT007 | PWS Table 1 shows performance objective as RIP and RA-O through the duration of the POP. The virtual site visit slides 60-61 have Site Closeout at the top of the slide. What is the purpose of labeling some of the slides as SC at the top. This is the case for several other sites. Please clarify if that is a typo or if AF is expecting SC for this site and other RA-O sites? | Wrong version of slide deck was inadvertantly uploaded. Title changed but not the pertinent information. |
| 6 | LTM Sites LF010, LF033, ZZ047, ZZ048, ZZ049 | PWS Table 1 shows performance objectives as LTM with Institutional Controls. Would the contractor be responsible for maintaining (e.g. mowing, repairs) the landfill covers? | No, mowing is not needed. |
| 7 | Basewide | What standard has been used by KDHE and/or EPA for the number of consecutive sampling events or time duration below the cleanup level to achieve site closeout or response complete? | One year (4 consecutive events) |
| 8 | Basewide | Do changes to the current groundwater monitoring program for each site require a permit modification? Or can the network locations or frequency by revised via the periodic monitoring reports? | No permit changes are required. However, they can make recommendations within reports and to the regulators as part of the periodic update meetings. If the regulators agree, changes can be made to the GWMP. Meetings to regulators are typically via TEAMS. |
| 9 | Section 6.2 | Are the AF document review durations shown in the table in Section 6.2 cumulative? Or is the 120 day review time shown for a document requiring coordination/signature from the installation inclusive of AF and Legal Review? | Depends on the nature of document. These review times are sequential not concurrent. For a highly complex document leading to a Decision, up to one year of review could potentially be involved. |
| 10 | Section 6.2 | Please clarify which documents or document types require coordination/signature from the installation and/or CZ. | Any document making a Decision, needs to be reviewed by CZTE and JAOE. i.e., DD, RFA, CMS, FS, RFI and RI |
| 11 | Draft PWS 1.3.2 (i) | How many sites will the RPM provide analytical data, new GWMW details, and current plume maps for that are not included in the ORC? | 14 sites |
| 12 | Draft PWS 1.3.2 | How many GWMW's exist at sites not included in this ORC? | 144 with a potentially additional 22 |
| 13 | 1.3.2 (m) | Will a separate CLIN be provided for the base background metals study? | See SubCLIN Structure - CLIN0010 |
| 14 | 1.3.2 (m) | Will additional sampling be required to update the base background study? | Not necessarily. |
| 15 | 1.3.2 (m) | Will a statistical analysis be required to update the base metals background study? | Yes |
| 16 | Draft PWS | Will a synoptic gauging event be required for the base? | There is an annual event for the Annual GW Flow Map |
| 17 | Draft PWS 8.1 | Does a baseline CSM exist for the site? | The Contractor will be required to develop their own baseline CSM based on available data and then update per PWS requirements. |
| 18 | Draft PWS 1.2.7.1.2 | What computer model files exist for 3D CSMs at the various sites? Can the government provide those files to the contractor on award? | None exist in 3D but the most recent CSM is available in the AR. |
| 19 | Draft PWS 1.3.2 (g) | How is IDW suspected to be contaminated with PFAS stored/staged and handled on the base? Will the contractor be required to cover costs for storing and handling PFAS contaminated waste at the base? | At the present time, liquid IDW impacted by PFAS is stored in contractor provided drums, totes, or tanks. Most contractors have been using the contractor equipment laydown yard to store soil and GW IDW. Liquid IDW is treated on-site by the contractor using a contractor supplied treatment system (usually a combination GAC/resin system), afterwhich it is analyzed for PFAS, then if it meets City of Wichita discharge standards, contractor personnel disposed of the IDW in the sanitary sewer. Before disposal can occur, a discharge permit is required from the City of Wichita Water Department ($100/permit/discharge). Disposal of liquid IDW into the sanitary sewer must be cooordinated with the MAFB Stormwater Manager. Soils impacted by PFAS are stored in contractor provided drums and/or roll-offs, usually at the equipment laydown yard. Impacted soils are disposed of by the contractor at a landfill (currently Plumb Thicket) approved to take PFAS impacted soils. Note: waste disposal must be coordinated through the MAFB Hazardous Waste Office. Waste disposal documentation (manifest, disposal tickets, waste characterization analytical results, etc.) is submitted to the MAFB Hazardous Waste Office. McConnell AFB is the waste generator. |
| 20 | Draft PWS 8.2 Table 2 | Can the government provide level of effort is anticipated for the contactor for transition or completion of the Groundwater Sampling, PFAS RI, RFI, and McConnel PBR listed in table 2? | The ORC contractor will not be responsible for the PFAS RI. Refer to the Sampling Transition Table. |
| 21 | Draft PWS | Is the contractor required to place a mobile office trailer on site? | No, Prerogative of the contactor. |
| 22 | Draft PWS | If conditional SC for contaminants other than PFAS is not accepted by KDHE how will that impact the ORC? | SC will not be achieved. |
| 23 | Sec 1.3.1 Table 1 | Comparison of the 2022 PWS and the 16 March 2023 PWS showed many of the performance objectives deleted "in accordance with the approved ROD/DD. Did these site fail to develop ROD/DD? | Please refer to most recent version of PWS. All RODs/DDs are on the AR for reference. |
| 24 | Virtual Site Visit | During the virtual site visit ZZ052 was described as being below EPA and KDHE screening levels and that the performance objective might change. Please confirm. | PO is Decision Document. |
| 25 | Virtual Site Visit | SS003 was described as having a Final VI workplan. Does TU546 also have an approved VI workplan? | No |
| 26 | Sec 1.3.1 Table 1 | The performance standard for the Community Involvemnt Plan includes approval by the USACE. Is this correct? | AF approval is all that is needed. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .