Attachment 3 - NTTR GROUND PENETRATING RADAR QA.pdf

F3G0CA5139AW01 NTTR GROUND PENETRATING RADAR (GPR) SURVEY Q&A

Q: Can you confirm the total area of the project site? It is listed as both 200 acres and 200 hectares on SAM.gov.

A: The area indicated in the SOO is 200 acres.

Q: Could you confirm if there is an incumbent contractor currently providing range support services or conducting similar GPR survey work at NTTR? If so, would you be able to share the name of the company currently performing this work?

A: This is a new one-time service requirement. There is no incumbent.

Q: Is a UXO surface clearance expected prior to / in conjunction with DGM survey activities?

A: This area has already been swept, and everything on the surface was picked up. Nevertheless, Targets personnel will be accompanying the group when the survey takes place.

Q: Will identified UXO be managed by a responding EOD unit or will the contractor be responsible for the management of MEC/MPPEH?

A: The contractor will be responsible for the identification of potential Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) within the designated survey area. The investigation shall achieve a minimum depth of 10 feet. The Contractor shall accurately mark all identified UXO locations in the field with clearly visible and durable markers. However, the Contractor is not responsible for removing anything, as that is out of the contractor's scope of work. If any visible UXO or any UXO detected at a depth of three (3) feet or less is encountered, all work must cease immediately, assess the situation, notify the Government Project Manager and Environmental Manager, implement safety measures, and seek expert guidance to safety address the encountered conditions. Work shall not resume until authorized by the Government and the UXO has been rendered safe or removed.

Q: Will the production, submittal, and approval of an explosive safety submission be required for this operation?

A: No, a separate explosive safety submission will not be required from the contractor for this operation. Government explosive safety protocols are already in place and will govern overall safety; the contractor's role is focused on identification and marking. Specific reporting requirements are detailed on page 4 of the Statement of Objectives (SOO).

Q: If there are shrubs that need to be removed in order to maintain grid, is that the contractor’s responsibility or the facility?

A: The contractor is responsible for the physical removal and trimming of shrubs to maintain grid integrity. However, in areas with pre-identified and marked cultural resources, the contractor is strictly prohibited from any disturbance or activity.

Q: How should we address the delays while potential uxos are being cleared, we will be incurring expenses during a stand down. Can we have a line-item option added for incurred daily costs?

A: While we have a fixed-price contract, we are committed to a fair outcome, and we acknowledge potential for UXO-related delays. Therefore, include in your cost assumptions a maximum of 15 calendar days of delay due to UXO finds at no additional cost to the Government. For each stoppage, the government assessment time will be deducted from the 15-day allowance (e.g., a 3-day assessment reduces the allowance to 12 days). If the cumulative assessment time exceeds 15 days, additional costs and time extensions will be considered, pending government review and approval.

Contractors should provide their daily rate for potential delays exceeding the 15-day allowance as part of their proposal.

Factor potential delays (up to 15 cumulative days) into your cost, clearly stating assumptions. We are committed to a fair outcome.

Q: Is there an assumed anomaly density for the site?

A: We do not have a precisely assumed anomaly density for this specific survey area. However, offerors should be aware of the following conditions when preparing their proposals:

- The site was historically utilized as a target area, probably between approximately 1947 and 1990, indicating a high potential for various subsurface anomalies.

- A buried tank, with a visible hatch, has been identified within the site area.

- Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) has been previously encountered within the broader site, suggesting a continued potential for UXO discoveries in this area.

- There are no known active pipelines in this specific survey area. There are no significant structures in this area, apart from a concrete pad approximately 15'x10'.

Given these factors, your proposal must comprehensively account for the inherent uncertainties regarding anomaly density and the full scope of GPR data collection, interpretation, and identification of all subsurface anomalies, including potential UXO, commensurate with the site's history and known features.

Q: Are there any archeological/cultural or biological issues at the site?

A: Biological: No known biological issues.

Cultural: Yes, cultural resources are present. The Government will mark these areas on-site. The contractor is prohibited from disturbing or moving anything within these marked zones.

Q: Are there any access limitations to the range, i.e., can work be performed sun up to sun down and 7 days a week if needed?

A: No, work cannot be performed sun up to sun down and 7 days a week.

Access is limited because: Government escort is required, and their coordination with other contractors restricts flexible scheduling. Overtime cannot be paid.

Standard working hours are Monday through Friday, 0600-1630, with a maximum of 40 hours per week. Please exclude the 11 Federal holidays from the schedule.

Q: Is the site accessible to blue-list UAVs? Are there any site conditions including security requirements that would prevent flying a UAV to complete the GPMR survey?

A: Regarding UAV accessibility for the GPMR survey, please be advised that the 200-acre project site is a classified area. Due to the sensitive nature and stringent security protocols, obtaining approval for any UAV operations, including "blue-list" systems, is extremely challenging and highly unlikely within project timelines. Therefore, we request clarification on whether UAV deployment is an absolute necessity for your proposed methodology, or if alternative ground-based methods can be employed.

Q: DoD has a certification program (DAGCAP) for contractors to detect potential subsurface UXO, and to classify anomalies as not UXO or possible UXO. Will DAGCAP certification be considered in the proposal evaluation?

A: While DAGCAP (Defense Ammunition Center Geospatial Anomaly Classification and Prioritization) certification demonstrates a specialized and relevant capability, it is not a mandatory or exclusionary requirement. Our evaluation will focus on core GPR capabilities, experience, methodology, and cost.

Q: Detection of subsurface metal for UXO typically identifies 100 or more pieces of metallic debris for each UXO that is detected. Does the government desire the use of advanced geophysical classification (AGC) by a DAGCAP certified government contractor to eliminate from further investigation subsurface metal that is classified as ‘not UXO’ by AGC?

A: The government's primary focus is on outcome, results, and performance. We require reliable identification of potential UXO up to 10 feet, accurate on-site marking and mapping of all detected anomalies, and comprehensive analysis, including the existing buried tank (which we expect to be found and identified), and differentiation of UXO from other metals and debris.

As the experts, offerors are expected to propose the most effective methodologies and equipment to achieve these objectives. While the Statement of Objectives (SOO) mentions specific equipment, it also includes 'similar approved by the government,' allowing for your proposed approach, which we will review and approve. Specific methods like Advanced Geophysical Classification (AGC) or DAGCAP certification are therefore not prescribed; we seek proposals that reliably achieve our stated objectives.

Q: Please provide a general assumption for the type/size of UXO expected at the site. Some smaller UXO cannot reliably be detected to a depth of 10 feet bgs.

A: The 99th CES EOD Team conducted a surface sweep of that area in Nov 2023. They located BDU-33 (25 lb. practice bombs), 500 & 700 lb practice bombs, and a practice warhead from a 2.75" rocket.

Q: What are the approximate sizes and shapes of the features that are expected to be found—to help calibrate GPR detection thresholds and target discrimination?

A: Please refer to the response provided immediately above this question.

Q: The SOO specifies a GSSI SIR 4000 with a 350MHz hyperstacked antenna. Is there a specific technical reason or standard for the deliverables, or will the Government consider approving the Easy Radar 500MHz system as an equivalent?

A: The GSSI SIR 4000 with a 350MHz hyperstacked antenna was specified in the Scope of Work (SOO) due to its proven capability to reliably achieve the required 10-foot depth for UXO detection. This frequency offers an optimal balance between penetration depth and target resolution, which is critical for identifying potential UXO targets down to 10 feet across varying soil conditions. The "hyperstacked" antenna technology further enhances signal quality and penetration, ensuring robust data acquisition at the specified depths.

While a 500MHz system typically offers higher resolution, its ability to consistently penetrate to 10 feet can be significantly limited, especially in varying soil conditions.

Offerors proposing alternative GPR systems must clearly demonstrate in their proposal how their chosen equipment will consistently meet or exceed all SOO requirements, specifically the 10-foot depth capability, across anticipated site conditions. We definitely can evaluate all proposed systems based on their ability to fulfill these critical performance parameters.

Q: Is there a preferred grid spacing or transect orientation to be used, or will proposed configurations be evaluated solely on their ability to meet detection and location accuracy requirements (±12 inches horizontally/vertically)?

A: Contractor must propose their grid spacing and transect orientation methodology to meet the objective of this project.

Q: The SOO notes that personnel information must be submitted within 3 calendar days of NTP.

If previously vetted personnel have existing access approvals (e.g., through recent federal projects), is there a streamlined path for reauthorization or recognition of prior clearance?

A: No, there is no automatic streamlined path. All personnel, including previously vetted, must submit their information within 3 calendar days of NTP. We will then determine if their existing access is sufficient for our project's specific restricted areas.

Q: Can the Government provide a vegetation density estimate for TPECR? Or, can the Government provide up-to-date, georeferenced imagery of the 200-acre survey area? This would help assess the feasibility of wheeled GPR platform use versus hand-towed deployment.

A: Vegetation density within the TPECR survey area is representative of typical Nevada desert scrub. Up-to-date, georeferenced imagery is not currently available for distribution.

Q: Has there been any prior geophysical survey or historical information about existing subsurface utilities, infrastructure, or high-metal content debris fields in this zone that may affect signal interpretation?

A: Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys have been conducted to a depth of one foot. The surface area has been cleared of visible metallic objects. While no utilities are known to exist within the survey area, one buried tank is present. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) is anticipated due to prior discoveries within the TPECR.

Q: The SOO uses the term Ground Penetrating Microwave Radar (GPMR) alongside GPR. Can you confirm whether this is intentionally distinct from standard GPR systems, or whether GPR-only systems are acceptable provided they meet depth and accuracy requirements?

A: Equipment: GSSI SIR 4000 surveyor coupled to 350 MHz hyper stacked antennae (or approved equivalent). Any proposed equipment changes must be approved in writing by the Government.

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) systems, including those operating within the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (sometimes referred to as Ground Penetrating Microwave Radar or GPMR), are acceptable provided they meet the depth and accuracy requirements outlined in the SOO. As the SOO also indicates 'or equivalent' equipment may be proposed, we will ensure that any proposed GPR system, regardless of its specific frequency range, complies with the project objectives. The Government will evaluate and approve or disapprove the proposed equipment based on its ability to meet those objectives.

Q: If metallic anomalies are detected at <3ft and visually assessed as possible UXO, will an on-site EOD team be immediately available, or should our proposal include an allowance for remobilization pending clearance?

A: The Government will address potential Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) discoveries as expeditiously as possible.

While we have a fixed-price contract, we are committed to a fair outcome, and we acknowledge potential for UXO-related delays. Therefore, include in your cost assumptions a maximum of 15 calendar days of delay due to UXO finds at no additional cost to the Government. For each stoppage, the government assessment time will be deducted from the 15-day allowance (e.g., a 3-day assessment reduces the allowance to 12 days). If the cumulative assessment time exceeds 15 days, additional costs and time extensions will be considered, pending government review and approval.

Contractors should provide their daily rate for potential delays exceeding the 15-day allowance as part of their proposal.

Factor potential delays (up to 15 cumulative days) into your cost, clearly stating assumptions. We are committed to a fair outcome.

Q: Are there seasonal restrictions or known weather conditions at TPECR during the proposed field window (e.g., high winds, lightning storms) that may impact safe GPR operation or scheduling?

A: The Government is not aware of any specific seasonal restrictions or unusual weather conditions at the TPECR site. Standard desert weather conditions, including potential for high temperatures, should be anticipated.

Q: Do you anticipate any seasonal or environmental constraints—such as vegetation clearance or soil moisture conditions—that could affect our 500 MHz penetration depth and data quality during the field window?

A: The Government does not anticipate any unusual seasonal or environmental constraints beyond typical desert conditions.

Q: What format and level of detail do you require for the continuous GPS logging: raw GNSS observations, post-processed points, or both, and do you have a preference?

A: The Government requires Data Recording: Continuous data logging with accurate GPS coordinates for each data point. Post-processed points are essential to achieve the accuracy required for precise Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) location. The raw GNSS observation data should also be provided for quality control and verification purposes. The final deliverable must include a georeferenced map showing all identified potential UXO anomalies, with coordinates, depth and shape. In addition to the map, all identified potential UXO locations must be physically marked in the field with clearly indicating the anomaly location.

Q: Should our comprehensive report include separate mapping of known underground utilities versus unexploded ordnance targets, or is a combined deliverable preferred?

A: The Government requires a clear and easily interpretable presentation of all identified anomalies. The Contractor shall propose a mapping strategy that effectively conveys this information.

Q: Will the government provide a base map or LiDAR-derived surface model to overlay our subsurface anomaly locations?

A: No.

Q: Should we include surface modeling in our scope?

A: The Government requires accurate location data (including depth and shape) for relevant identified subsurface anomalies, including potential Unexploded Ordnance (UXO), to be presented on a georeferenced map. Given that the survey area is generally flat, the Contractor, as the subject matter expert, shall propose whether surface modeling is necessary to achieve the required locational accuracy for UXO and utility mapping. The Government is primarily concerned with the accuracy of the final deliveries and relies on the Contractor's expertise to determine the most effective methods for achieving those results. If the Contractor recommends including surface modeling, their proposal must clearly justify the added cost and explain how it will improve the accuracy and reliability of the anomaly location data. The Contractor shall also describe their proposed surface modeling methodology and the expected accuracy of the resulting model. The Government will evaluate the Contractor's justification and determine whether to include surface modeling in the final scope of work.

Q: Are there any site access restrictions or environmental sensitivities such as cryptobiotic soils or cultural resources that would limit pedestrian survey or require low-impact methods?

A: Site access restrictions are in place due to this being a classified military installation. There are no known environmental concerns. Cultural resources are present and clearly marked within the survey area. The Contractor is strictly prohibited from disturbing any identified cultural resources.

Q: Will geo-referenced GPR slices be expected in the deliverables or will it just be used for post processing and analysis and GPS locations and points be added to a map for further analysis?

A: The Government does not require geo-referenced GPR slices to be included as a deliverable.

The Contractor is responsible for utilizing GPR slice data, and any other necessary processing techniques, to accurately identify and determine the location (including depth) of all potential Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and other subsurface anomalies. The final deliverable must include a clear and legible georeferenced map, in PDF format, showing the location and depth of all identified anomalies. The Contractor's methodology for processing and interpreting the GPR data to generate this map should be described in the project report.

Q: Will the Government provide secure on-site storage for contractor equipment to mitigate delays caused by daily gate inspections and transport logistics?

A: The Government will not provide dedicated on-site storage for contractor equipment. However, the Government can indicate a potential staging area within the installation; the Contractor remains fully responsible for all equipment storage arrangements, security, and for factoring any associated delays due to gate inspections and transport logistics into their project schedule. Use of any designated staging area is at the Contractor's sole discretion and risk.

Q: Does the government require personnel with formal UXO Technician certifications (e.g., UXO Tech I/II) or equivalent military/civilian explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) experience? Or documented training or certification in GPR operation and data interpretation from recognized institutions or manufacturers (e.g., GSSI-certified training)?

A: The Government does not require Contractor’s personnel to possess formal UXO Technician certifications or specific certifications in GPR operation and data interpretation. However, the Contractor is solely responsible for ensuring that all personnel performing GPR surveys and data interpretation are adequately trained and qualified to perform their assigned tasks safely and accurately. The Contractor's proposed methodology for ensuring data quality and personnel safety must be clearly described in their proposal. The Government will provide a site-specific safety briefing to all Contractor personnel prior to the commencement of fieldwork. The Government's UXO removal team will be responsible for any required UXO remediation activities.

Q: Should the contractor anticipate remobilization to the site in the event discrepancies are identified, and if so, will the Government define a maximum number of return visits or duration of support expected?

A: All work, including any necessary remobilization, must be completed within the agreed-upon project schedule.

Q: Will the Government provide a formal inspection checklist or criteria to guide the verification process and reduce ambiguity regarding what constitutes a “discrepancy”?

A: The Government will not provide a formal inspection checklist. The verification process will be based on the Government's assessment of whether the deliverables meet the overall objectives of the project. The Contractor is encouraged to communicate with the Government throughout the project to ensure that their work is aligned with the Government's expectations.

Q: Will the Government provide a defined response timeline and protocol for UXO remediation once work is halted?

A: While we have a fixed-price contract, we are committed to a fair outcome, and we acknowledge potential for UXO-related delays. Therefore, include in your cost assumptions a maximum of 15 calendar days of delay due to UXO finds at no additional cost to the Government. For each stoppage, the government assessment time will be deducted from the 15-day allowance (e.g., a 3-day assessment reduces the allowance to 12 days). If the cumulative assessment time exceeds 15 days, additional costs and time extensions will be considered, pending government review and approval.

Contractors should provide their daily rate for potential delays exceeding the 15-day allowance as part of their proposal.

Factor potential delays (up to 15 cumulative days) into your cost, clearly stating assumptions. We are committed to a fair outcome.

Q: Should offerors assume that the entire site will be shut down during such events, or will segmented work areas be permitted to continue operations while isolated UXO is addressed?

A: It depends on the specific situation. Upon discovery of any anomaly resembling potential UXO, the contractor must immediately halt work in the affected area and follow established safety protocols.

The Government will conduct an assessment, which may occur on the same day. Following the assessment, the Government will determine if work can safely continue in other areas of the site, outside of a designated safety perimeter around the potential UXO. This determination will depend on the specific characteristics of the anomaly and the surrounding environment and will be communicated to the contractor as soon as possible to minimize project delays.

Q: When is the contractor’s detailed methodology and equipment description due for submission, e.g., upon award, prior to mobilization, or by a specific number of days after Notice to Proceed?

A: To ensure a thorough evaluation of all proposals, offerors should include a summary of their proposed methodology and equipment in their proposal. This will allow the Government to compare the technical approaches of different offerors.

Following contract award and Notice to Proceed (NTP), the contractor will ha seven (7) calendar days to submit a detailed methodology and equipment description for Government review and approval. The Government will then review the submission and provide approval or comments within ten (10) days of receipt.

Q: Should each potential UXO location be marked with a single marker, a perimeter of markers, or another specific configuration?

A: The proposed contractor methodology should address the marking of subsurface anomalies.

While the Government will not provide a prescribed marking procedure, the following example illustrates the expected outcome of the contractor's methodology:

Potential subsurface anomalies, including but not limited to UXO, pipes, buried tanks, etc., must be clearly marked with a perimeter of markers. Each anomaly itself should be uniquely numbered.

This number should correspond to a detailed entry on a contractor-provided map, including coordinates, depth, shape, length, and any other relevant anomaly characteristics. The map should clearly differentiate between the types of anomalies identified (e.g., UXO, pipe, tank, unknows, etc.).

Contractors are encouraged to propose innovative and efficient methods to achieve this outcome.

Proposals will be evaluated based on their clarity, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness in achieving the desired outcome.

Q: Are there any Government-defined standards or preferences for marker spacing, placement, or orientation?

A: No. Our primary objective is for the GPR Contractor to accurately locate UXO and determine their depth and shape. This information will allow the Government to assess the potential danger presented by UXO within the survey area. The resulting UXO data will be provided to a separate engineering team responsible for the design and construction of a future water project in the same area. This water project will be undertaken by a different contractor at a later date.

Q: What is the expected duration of “long-term visibility”, e.g., should markers remain in place for a defined period such as days, weeks, months, or years?

A: SOO indicates: ‘The Contractor shall accurately mark all identified potential UXO locations in the field with clearly visible and durable markers (e.g., stakes, flagging tape, paint) suitable for long-term visibility’.

Long-term visibility is defined as 12 months following completion of the GPR survey and initial UXO assessment.

Q: Are there any environmental or operational conditions that should be considered when selecting marker materials?

A: No.

Q: Is it the Government's intention, or would the Government be open to accepting more efficient techniques for searching large areas, specifically for UXO?

A: Yes. We encourage you to submit a proposal outlining your methodology and the equipment you would utilize. Our evaluation process will focus on alignment with Government objectives and overall effectiveness.