Questions_and_Answers_24Sep18.docx

As a small business set aside, will the contracting officer allow subcontracting the crane to a business that exceeds the cap? Must the pricing portion of the proposal include a breakdown of subcontracting and/or subcontractors?

Answer: IAW 13 CFR 125.6 – What are the prime contractor’s limitations on subcontracting?

(f)Inapplicability of limitations on subcontracting. The limitations on subcontracting do not apply to:

(1) Small business set-aside contracts with a value that is greater than the micro-purchase threshold but less than or equal to the simplified acquisition threshold (as both terms are defined in the FAR at 48 CFR 2.101); or After award, if the contractor enters into a subcontract with a crane business and the government decides to Terminate for Convenience, will the contractor be reimbursed for all crane costs?

Answer: The contractor’s reimbursement will be processed IAW FAR 52.212-4(l).

Will the government extend the period of performance? The PWS specifies built-in delays of at least 14 days for reporting HAZMAT, the State Habitat Permit typically requires at least 14 days, and the JBER Form 3 has no specified timeframe. Additionally, the government dictated crane solution may require a significant lead time to schedule and subcontract to a business large enough to maintain a crane fleet unless the government intends to provide the crane as GFE.

Answer: No and this requirement does not include GFE/GFP.

What is the anticipated range of award? What is the maximum size of award including post award modifications?

Answer: As sited in the previous Questions and Answer posting: This project is considered a service under FAR Part 37, therefore there is no disclosure of magnitude.

Will the PWS be updated and re-distributed prior to the bid submission date? If so, will it be posted to allow companies at least 24 hours to review the updates?

Answer: No If a finalized PWS is not available prior to the submission deadline, are offerors bound to the revised PWS at time of award? May an offeror make a statement in the proposal refusing to accept a specific condition or standard in the PWS? If so, will disagreeing with the PWS be grounds for being deemed not technically acceptable during the source selection process? For instance, if an offeror will not accept the standard outlined in the PWS paragraph 1.1 (zero tolerance to components or debris falling into the water), would that assertion cause the offeror to be technically unacceptable or could the standard be negotiated?

Answer: No, the PWS and standards will not be revised. See responses to the general questions concerning debris falling in to the stream bed. Technical acceptability is defined as meeting all of the criteria in the PWS. See combined synopsis/solicitation submission and technical acceptability requirements.

The synopsis states questions will not be accepted after 24 September. If initial questions generate follow-up questions will the question acceptance cutoff be extended? Will the award submission period be extended?

Answer: No Based on Q/A will the contracting officer provide the proposed contract language in regard to FAR 52.236-9 (Existing Vegetation clause) prior to the award submission deadline for offerors to review?

Answer: FAR 52.236-9 is incorporated by reference in the combined synopsis solicitation.

In reference to FAR 52.236.10, and conditions in PWS para 1.6, will the contracting officer approve a small, temporary warming/storage tent or shed in the vicinity of the bridges?

Answer: If requested with proper justification, a small temporary warming/storage tent or shed will be approved by the Contracting Officer. Equipment staging, fueling and servicing operations shall be conducted a minimum of 100 feet from any waterbody. All refuse, garbage, or debris created in the course of the construction activities will be contained in wildlife secure containers and removed and disposed of at an approved facility.

Will the government provide a single COR or project manager to report to vice multiple agencies and individuals throughout the installation?

Answer: This contract will identify a 773 CES POC at contract award.

Why is there so much emphasis on Hazardous waste, soil contamination, spills, etc. (75% of the PWS)? Has the government conducted soil testing under/near the bridges? Does the government have knowledge of current spills, contamination, or waste in the bridge areas leftover from their construction, maintenance, or use? Is the steel coated with lead paint? Do any of the bridge components contain lead paint? Does the government have knowledge of contaminated materials in the bridges? Was there potential contamination during the construction, operation, or maintenance of the bridges? Were there pesticides or herbicides used in the pipes that transit the bridge? Will the contractor be held liable or responsible for any existing contamination or hazardous waste regardless of when testing occurs? Is there a specific period/timeframe following award the contractor has to determine pre-existing waste, contamination, or spills and report back to the government? Will the government certify there is no existing hazardous materials or wastes in or around the bridges and bridge sites or in the pipes transiting the bridges?

ANSWER: There is no known contamination or hazardous materials at the site, but there is a possibility of lead paint on the bridge (it hasn’t been tested). Disposal of the bridge materials is the responsibility of the contractor.

Any spills, releases, contamination or damage resulting from contractor operations are the responsibility of the contractor. The government will inspect the site during and after the project to determine if there is contamination the contractor will be required to clean up as a result of their operations.

The HAZMAT/Environmental portion of the PWS (para 1.4-1.8) is long and difficult to understand. It is also scattered with reports, directives, and objectives that are not contained in the Service Delivery Performance Objectives. Would the government edit this section to information pertinent to this contract and to small businesses? Additionally, would the government clearly label which of the reports, directives, and objectives constitute Performance Objectives and include them in the performance objectives matrix?

ANSWER: The PWS and performance objectives will not be revised. The HazMat portion is for the contractor to be aware that they are responsible for notifying the government of any HazMat brought onto the base and for proper disposal of any HazMat and HazWaste generated as a result the project.

Paragraph 1.

“…environmental implications…” is a vague statement. Could the government expand and clarify what it means in terms of restrictions, constraints, and legal penalties? Could/would the government explain its view of “environmental implications” rather than making an ambiguous statement?

ANSWER: This statement means that the contractor is liable for any damages or contamination resulting from their operations. The contractor must adhere to all legal/regulatory requirements imposed by Federal and State laws, and by the Air Force.

By accepting this contract, does the contractor incur or assume any liability for the collapsed portion of Bridge 3?

ANSWER: There is no known environmental or other liability associated with the collapsed portion of the bridge. Removal will be addressed as part of the Habitat Permit obtained by the government.

Permits:

In an initial contact with State Habitat Office, a representative stated the office was already working with JBER on permits for a bridge removal project. Is the government already working permits for this project? If so, will the government provide all permit submissions for contractor review? Will the contractor be required to execute the work based on these permit submissions or will the contractor have the flexibility to provide its own work plans/sketches for permitting documents? If the government is already working permits, will the PWS be updated to reflect joint responsibility and/or government responsibility? Will the government clarify who is responsible for permits?

If the government submitted for permits, does that mean there is already a specifically prescribed plan of work which the contractor must follow? If so, could the government provide this pre-determined plan for better cost estimating? If the government has already determined how the work will be done, to the point of specifying equipment and submitting permit applications, wouldn’t this contract be better as a Time and Material contract with the contractor supplying personnel and equipment and the government serving as the lead integrator?

Has the government attempted to perform this work itself and been unable due to permit denials? If a permit was denied, would the government share the methods it knows will not be permitted?

ANSWER: The government has not attempted to conduct this work and does not have a work plan. The government has not been denied a habitat permit for this work. The government will be responsible for a habitat permit that allows the bridges to be lifted from the creek without any damage to the creek bank and stream bed. The contractor is liable for any damages to the creek bank and stream bed as a result of their operations.

For developing permits:

Is the government specifying a minimum standoff distance from the stream bank?

ANSWER: Equipment staging, fueling and servicing operations shall be conducted a minimum of 100 feet from any waterbody. Equipment used to remove the bridge can be operated near the stream bank (without damaging the bank), but the government will not allow wheeled/tracked equipment to be operated within any part of the stream.

Since the government has specified a crane, is the intent to deny the use of any wheeled or tracked vehicles in the stream? Typically, these details are determined in the permit process with the State Habitat office. Has the government previously been denied a Habitat permit based on using equipment in the stream?

ANSWER: No wheeled or tracked equipment will be operated in any part of the stream in this area. The government has not applied for a habitat permit for this project or been denied a permit for this project.

Will the government clarify whether the contractor or government is responsible for permitting?

ANSWER: See previous response.

The posted Q/A states the government cannot provide “as built” plans for the bridges; however, can the government provide any of the following information:

What is the depth of the abutments and footings? Unknown What is the depth of the support piers in the active stream? Unknown What is the depth of the support piers in the stream bed but above average high water mark? Unknown Are any of the support piers set in concrete? Unknown May the support piers above the average high water mark be cut at or near grade to avoid digging and thus a JBER Form 3?

ANSWER: No, support piers must be below grade.

Will any concrete footers need to be excavated from the active stream bed?

ANSWER: No.

Where must support piers standing in the water be cut? At current water level? Below current water level? Removed entirely? Below the stream bed grade?

ANSWER: Piers will be at or below the stream bed.

Do the bridges span salmon spawning sites or a swim through areas? Has the JBER environmental staff recorded salmon escapement past the William Jack Hernandez Fish Hatchery and onto JBER in the vicinity of the bridges? Is this one of the “environmental implications” alluded to in paragraph 1?

ANSWER: No.

Do the bridge sites span critical Habitat? If so, what is the nature of the critical habitat designation? Are the bridge sites in a Special Area?

ANSWER: No.

Can, and will, the government provide a map depicting wetlands areas along the access routes or in the vicinity of the bridges?

ANSWER: JBER has a map of wetland areas on the installation. Utilizing existing access routes will avoid impacts to wetlands.

Does JBER environmental have any specified turbidity standards or any general water quality standards more stringent than State and federal regulations?

ANSWER: No. Equipment will not be allowed to operate within the creek.

Are there any special riparian zone restrictions in place at the bridge zones? If so, what are they or where can the documentation be electronically downloaded?

ANSWER: Equipment staging, fueling and servicing operations shall be conducted a minimum of 100 feet from any waterbody. Equipment used to remove the bridge can be operated near the stream bank (without damaging the bank), but the government will not allow wheeled/tracked equipment to be operated within any part of the stream. Ship Creek is listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog and the contractor must adhere to all applicable requirements imposed by law or Air Force requirements. Use of established roadways to access the bridges will avoid wetland areas and potential impacts.

What are the JBER regulations that address environmental issues pertaining to this Solicitation? Where may the JBER environmental regulations be obtained? Is there a publicly accessible electronic repository?

ANSWER: Equipment staging, fueling and servicing operations shall be conducted a minimum of 100 feet from any waterbody. Equipment used to remove the bridge can be operated near the stream bank (without damaging the bank), but the government will not allow wheeled/tracked equipment to be operated within any part of the stream. Ship Creek is listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog and the contractor must adhere to all applicable requirements imposed by law or Air Force requirements.

There are no as-builts and the government does not have details concerning construction of the abutments or piers. The abutments will not be removed. The piers located above the stream water level can be cut at grade. The piers in the water will be cut below the stream bed. Use of established roadways to access the bridges will avoid wetland areas and potential impacts.

JBER is subject to all applicable State and Federal regulatory requirements, Air Force Instructions, installation specific requirements and requirements imposed under a contract. The applicable requirements are adequately described in this solicitation and addressed in the questions. The Air Force can provide the contractor with a detailed list of State, Federal and Air Force requirements if applicable.

Does the scope of this work only include standing portions of the bridges? Is removing the currently collapsed span of Bridge 3 included in this solicitation or is the government already pursuing actions to remove that debris from the creek?

ANSWER: It is expected that the collapsed bridge 3 be removed under this contract The statement, “Contractor’s responsibilities shall include, but not limited to….” is vague. Will the government clarify?

ANSWER: All components related to the bridge and its placement Will the government clarify debris removal? What is the degree or limit to clearing and removing natural debris? Is it only the debris generated from removing the bridges? Only the debris generated from removing the bridges.

Is it defined in feet from the bridge? No.

Does this include clearing the concrete riprap currently lying in the stream near the bridges? No.

Does this include debris from previous bridges built in close proximity to the current bridges (particularly the concrete debris under and beside Bridge #5)? No.

Is natural debris in the stream required to be removed? Only to the extent as to enable removal of the bridges.

Is the requirement only to remove the spans and support piers? Yes.

Do the concrete abutments at each end of the bridge need to be removed or do they remain in place? No requirement, but if removed, a JBER Form 3 will be required.

If the JBER Form 3 is required, will the government expedite the process so work can begin within the 72 hour window and the 45 day PoP?

ANSWER: No requirement to expedite the process, see response to previous question.

What is inside the pipes and conduits traversing the bridges? For contractor safety, will the government lock and tag the utilities (water, electric, and any other) at their sources and terminate them at the bridge crossing sites? Will the contractor be allowed to view and verify the locking and tagging?

ANSWER: The conduits and pipe contained water and electrical cables and have been disconnected. Contractor may verify lock out/tag out.

Why does the government specify a crane must be used?

ANSWER: To minimize potential impact to creek bed.

Is the government intending the crane be utilized to lift the entire length of the bridges or lifting by individual span?

ANSWER: It is up to the contractor to utilize the crane to the ability of the contractor.

If by individual span, may the spans be cut in sections or must they be removed with a crane, in whole, as is, with concrete still attached?

ANSWER: The intent is to keep debris from entering the creek bed, see above answer.

May the concrete be removed from the steel structure prior to moving with a crane or must the spans (or entire bridge) be lifted as is, in whole, with concrete still attached? If the concrete may be removed first, is there a minimum/maximum size to which the concrete may be cut prior to lifting with a crane?

ANSWER: The intent is to keep debris from entering the creek bed, see above answer.

Will the government further specify a special demolition technique for Bridge #8 since is constructed differently than Bridges #3 and #5?

ANSWER: No.

Since the bridges are condemned, will the government certify the components are structurally sound enough to be lifted from the unstable support piers with a crane?

ANSWER: No.

Since a crane is specified, is the government offering to provide a crane as GFE? Does the government have a crane on JBER capable of performing the lifting task it would consider offering as GFE to reduce the expense of the contract?

ANSWER: No.

Is the government offering any GFE or assets for this project?

ANSWER: No.

Will the government specify a minimum or maximum crane weight, size, type, height, or model?

ANSWER: No.

Are there any restrictions on types of equipment or dimensions of equipment to include width, length, height, and weight? Are there any PSI weight restrictions for vehicles or crane legs?

ANSWER: No.

Are there any JBER specific height restrictions or lighting requirements for cranes? Is there any airspace coordination required for cranes of a certain height?

ANSWER: Contractor must follow industry standards and coordinate with Airfield Operations.

Will the government specify crane sites/positions at the bridges?

ANSWER: No.

Will the government specify only using cranes on existing asphalt or concrete roads/trails?

ANSWER: No.

If level, solid pads are required, will the government establish the pads? If not, will the government authorize the construction of pads? Does the government have a maximum allowable pad size? Will the government expedite a JBER Form 3 for constructing pads and any other dig requirements that may arise in order to complete the work within the PoP?

ANSWER: Government will not establish pads. There is no maximum allowable pad size. The contractor may establish pads as deemed necessary. JBER Form 3 would be processed as necessary.

Is there a restriction on where the spans may rest once removed? Must they be on one specific side of the creek or may both banks be utilized? This is critical information for sizing a crane, particularly for Bridge #5. Is there a time limit on how long the spans may lie alongside the creek prior to final demolition and disposal? Is there any specified supporting structure upon which the spans must lie or may they be lain directly on the ground or existing asphalt golf cart trails?

ANSWER: Spans may be placed in an area away from the creek bank, but not on the asphalt roadways. Spans must be removed prior to completion of the project.

The Q/A posted states there is no restriction on cutting trees; however, that was associated with a PWS that did not specify a crane. Given a crane is specified, there is a distinct possibility a substantial number of trees may need to be cut to establish a swing path for the crane. Is it still accurate that trees may be cut or must they remain in place and be lifted over?

ANSWER: Trees of all sizes can be removed, but there are restrictions to removing trees that are clearly stream bank habitat. Tree removal will be coordinated with the JBER Environmental Office to ensure there are no impacts to the stream bank. The absolute minimum number of trees will be removed to facilitate completion of the project. The government position is to minimize vegetation clearing.

Will the government provide its FAR 52.236-9 (Existing Vegetation) permissions, restrictions, and allowances prior to the proposal submission date?

ANSWER: See combined synopsis/solicitation.

What is the maximum allowable area of disturbance in order to establish a swing path for the crane and to accommodate its footprint?

ANSWER: Trees or all sizes can be removed, but there are restrictions to removing trees that are clearly stream bank habitat. Tree removal will be coordinated with the JBER Environmental Office to ensure there are no impacts to the stream bank. The absolute minimum number of trees will be removed to facilitate completion of the project.

May the cleared trees be left in place or must they be removed? Is mulching in place an acceptable alternative to removal from the installation?

ANSWER: Any trees cut to facilitate the project must be de-limbed, cut into manageable sections and hauled to the nearest wood cutting area on base (approximately 4.5 miles) or mulched on site.

Is there a limit on the diameter of individual trees that may be cleared? If so, what is it? If a tree exceeding the maximum cut size is present, what is the exception procedure to remove it? Is there a restriction on cutting trees close to the bank? If so, what? If a tree too near the bank must be cut to effectively utilize the crane, what is the exception procedure to remove it?

For instance, at one point on the access road along the creek there are two large cottonwoods on opposite sides of the road that form a relatively tight constricting point for long, wide vehicles. Also, trees along the bank may need to be cut to establish a swing path for 40’ spans.

ANSWER: Trees of all sizes can be removed, but there are restrictions to removing trees that are clearly stream bank habitat. Tree removal will be coordinated with the JBER Environmental Office to ensure there are no impacts to the stream bank. The absolute minimum number of trees will be removed to facilitate completion of the project, so cutting large spans of trees along the stream bank would not be acceptable to the government.

Will the government conduct any required tree clearing or is it a contractor responsibility?

ANSWER: No, the contractor is responsible.

Are there any specific species of vegetation that cannot be cut? If so, what? Will the government clearly mark trees and vegetation that can’t be cut? If the government conducts the marking, will it follow standard USFS marking methodologies or does JBER Environmental have a unique method? If a unique method, what is it and where can the standard be found?

ANSWER: Trees of all sizes/types can be removed, but there are restrictions to removing trees that are clearly stream bank habitat. Government will not mark trees for removal and there is no specified standard for removal.

Since the government has specified a crane, will it guarantee access, space, work requirements, and all aspects of utilizing a crane prior to award or must the small business offeror assume the risk that the government will withdraw or alter the requirement or put in place prohibitive restrictions?

ANSWER: Yes, but not extensive tree clearing.

Will the government clarify the ambiguity of the following statement?

“….will not allow any bridge components and or construction debris to fall into the stream or existing stream bed and or disturb the existing stream banks with the exception of minor debris associated with the removal/cutting of the support piers/members in the creek bed.”

ANSWER: With exception, the bridge sections will be removed intact, such that cutting and dropping pieces of the bridge into the creek is not acceptable to the government. The government understands that some collateral debris may fall into the creek as a result of the removal, but the contractor must keep that to a minimum.

What construction is the government asking the contractor to provide? The NAICS under this solicitation and the description of services indicates this is a demolition project.

ANSWER: Demolition through removal, as specified by the government.

Why is the government imposing a standard on the stream bed and banks that is typically the purview of the State of Alaska under the Anadromous Fish Act? Will the government clarify who is responsible for permits? Is the contractor responsible, per the statement in Paragraph 1 of the PWS; or, is the government conducting the permit application work?

ANSWER: See previous answers to this question. The Government is responsible for the permits. Work will be performed on a federal installation.

With the standard of not disturbing the existing stream bed/banks, how does the government envision a contractor will remove the span of Bridge #3 that is already resting, and becoming buried, in the existing stream bed? Will the government remove this span?

ANSWER: Removal of the collapsed section will be a condition of the permit and therefore allowed. The contractor must mitigate further debris from falling into the creek. The contractor is responsible for removal of the collapsed section of the bridge.

Since the government has already collapsed a 40 foot span of Bridge 3 into the creek and condemned the bridges, how can it reasonably expect a contractor to comply with a tolerance of zero components or debris falling into the water? Will the government modify this standard to allow for any level of debris falling into the water? Will the government modify this standard to recognize the risk of the components failing and falling?

ANSWER: See previous answer.

What does the government consider a component? A railing, a span, the concrete on the span, a span complete with concrete decking, some other definition? Please define component.

ANSWER: A component is any individual piece of the bridge.

What amount of debris is considered minor? Is there a volume or weight measure associated with “minor” to which the contractor will be held responsible/liable?

ANSWER: The contractor will take every precaution to not purposely allow any debris to fall into the creek. Small pieces of concrete rubble or saw dust would be minor amounts of debris.

Is there any tolerance for dropped metal spans or concrete into Ship Creek? Is there any penalty for dropping material into the creek? If so, what is the penalty? If material is dropped into the creek is there a specified method or technique to remove it from the creek bed? Is there any quantity that may be left in the stream, if so, is it defined by cubic feet or weight? What is the amount?

ANSWER: The contractor will take every precaution to not purposely allow any debris to fall into the creek. In the event damage to the stream bed, the situation will be assessed at that time with JBER Environmental and ADF&G.

For frame of reference and comparison so contractors have a better understanding of the risks, what penalty did JBER incur when Bridge 3 collapsed and dammed/altered the creek?

ANSWER: Unknown.

Since the government is specifying a crane, will the government assume responsibility for any bank or floodplain mediation caused by heavy equipment damage; for potential damming/altering of the creek if spans (already deemed non-load bearing) collapse or buckle and fall into the creek; or, for any riparian or wetland restoration due to widening of the access roads or tree clearing for site preparation?

ANSWER: The contractor is required to conduct the work in a manner that minimizes the risk of damage from use of equipment and damage from any bridge component falling into the creek. Repair of damage is the responsibility of the contractor. Utilizing existing access roads will allow access without damage to riparian zones.

Accurate specifications of the bridge construction materials are needed to accurately determine weights to ensure a properly sized crane can safely lift the bridge spans (or whole bridge). The posted Q/A document indicates the government can’t provide as-built plans for the bridges. If the government can’t provide as-built plans, can the government provide actual weights and dimensions of the steel and concrete based on its examinations and surveys that resulted in condemnation?

ANSWER: No.

Will the government provide the load analysis studies that were conducted prior to condemning the bridges?

ANSWER: Data does not exist.

Is there a load limit on any of the access roads/trails? What is the load limit of each culvert along the access road to the bridges? In particular, there is a culvert passing under the access road between Bridge #3 and Bridge #5; the culvert drains a small wetland area into Ship Creek. What is the load rating of this culvert crossing?

ANSWER: Information is unknown, contractor must use good judgement.

Since the contractor is being directed to use a crane, will the government assume responsibility for any weight damage caused to roads, trails, culverts, or other infrastructure?

ANSWER: In the event damage to roads, trails, culverts, or other infrastructure, the situation will be assessed at that time. Contractor must take maximum precautions to mitigate damage the areas.

What is the maximum allowable area of disturbance for clearing trees along the approved access route? Is there a maximum diameter of trees that may be cut? Are there any species of trees (or other vegetation) that may not be cut?

ANSWER: See previous responses regarding tree clearing.

At what acreage of disturbance along the access routes and the bridge sites will require a bond? If a bond is required, who will determine the bond amount and where/how may it be paid? What will the timeframe be for refunding the bond once the demolition is complete? What will be the conditions of the bond?

ANSWER: Bonding is not required.

Will there be specified timeframes to move the crane on base? Are there any restricted hours, or preferred hours, for moving heavy equipment through gates? With whom should movement be coordinated, the government’s project manager, directly with the Security Forces, the contracting office, some other entity?

ANSWER: Contractor will coordinate with the 773rd CES for base access.

Will the government make trail improvements or allow the contractor to make trail improvements to facilitate movement of heavy equipment along the access routes? In particular, may gravel be added to the dirt trail between the irrigation pond parking lot and Bridge #8? As is, the dirt trail is unlikely to support the heavy weight of a crane unless work is delayed until the ground freezes. May demolished concrete from the bridges be reutilized to improve the dirt trail?

ANSWER: The contractor may make trail improvements to facilitate movement of heavy equipment along the access routes. Demolished concrete from the bridges may not be reutilized to improve the dirt trail.

Ship Creek has numerous pieces of concrete slabs apparently used as riprap to inhibit bank erosion. As an alternative to disposal, would the government consider reutilizing the concrete from the bridge decks as riprap or fill? If so, to what sizes would the concrete slabs need to cut? Could the slabs be stored/stacked in the vicinity of the bridges?

ANSWER: No.

Why are the additional regulations of a LQG/LQH being inferred upon small business contractors who may qualify as a lesser level HW/UW generator or handler? What authority, regulation, or law allows JBER to arbitrarily reclassify businesses other than as defined by the EPA in 40CFR? Under 40CFR companies defined as Very Small Generators (VSG) and/or small handlers are exempt from many of the requirements in this PWS. Will the government reconsider this requirement and allow companies to work under their current classifications?

ANSWER: Based on a review of the project, there are no hazardous wastes associated with the bridges as constructed. Potential HazWaste generation is associated with HazMat (such as solvents) brought onto JBER by the contractor.

JBER is a LQG and all entities conducting work on the installation are considered by EPA to be co-generators, and therefore subject to LQG regulations. See EPA co-generator policy (45 Federal Register 72,026-27) and regulations found in 40 CFR 260-279. JBER has received fines from EPA for contractors disposing of their waste generated on JBER as SQG and VSQG.

The third subparagraph contradicts the first two subparagraphs. If the PWS is not changed, will the contractor be held to the arbitrary standard in the first two subparagraphs or the statutory regulations in 40CFR?

ANSWER: There is no contradiction.

In Subparagraph 5, the briefing requirement is unclear. Would the government clarify the requirement so labor costs can be accurately estimated? What is meant by “the contractor”? Is it the company owner, a company representative, everyone in the company working the contract, or some other definition? How long is the briefing? Where is the briefing? Are there any special access requirements for the briefing or for entry into the building where the briefing is held? When is the next briefing? What is the upcoming briefing schedule? Is there a contract penalty for not attending the briefing? If so, what is the penalty? How would a lack of scheduled briefings affect the PoP?

ANSWER: A briefing on HazWaste requirements is required for all contractor employees and sub-contractors if the contractor has the potential to generate HazWaste during the project. Briefings, if necessary, can be scheduled on an as needed basis and be conducted at multiple locations on base that do not have access restrictions, including project sites.

Numerous subparagraphs address the prohibition of the use of government facilities for hazardous material, hazardous waste, or universal waste storage. If contractors are denied use these facilities, why designate as LQGs/LQHs?

ANSWER: Those paragraphs mean that the contractor is not allowed to dispose of HazMat or HazWaste at JBER facilities. If the contractor utilizes HazMat and generates HazWaste on JBER, they must coordinate with the JBER Environmental Office for direction on proper disposal of the HazWaste. The contractor is responsible to pay for disposal of any wastes generated during this project.

Subparagraph 8 discusses manifest requirements that, a VSG would not be subject to; why is the government adding complexity and expense?

ANSWER: See previous response regarding LQG requirements. Any HazWaste transported off JBER requires a manifest signed by the designated government official with the JBER Environmental Office.

Subparagraph 8 also states only 673rd CES/CEIEC personnel are available to sign manifests. The PWS authorizes work hours from 0600-2200. Will the government ensure one of these individuals be present during the entire authorized work period to sign manifests? With a short 45 day period of performance, the unavailability of these individuals has the potential to impact performance.

ANSWER: The government cannot ensure the authorized individual will be available at all hours during this project. If the contractor identifies a HazWaste that is generated during this project, they must coordinate with the JBER Environmental Office (673 CES/CEIEC) to evaluate the waste, documentation and to sign a manifest.

Subparagraph 10 contains a time constraint of 14 days that could affect the period of performance. The time constraint is directly relevant to being arbitrarily classified as a LQG. Will the government reconsider this requirement?

ANSWER: No.

Additionally, classification as a LQG is not arbitrary and this question appears to be asked from a point of ignorance with respect to hazardous waste regulations applicable to federal facilities ANSWER: See previous response regarding this issue.

Numerous other paragraphs also include requirements, reports, or tasks related to the arbitrary designation of LQG/LQH status. Rather than asking each specific question, would the government review and reconsider this section to make it more applicable to small business EPA categorizations, rules, and regulations?

ANSWER: No. There are no situations where any entity operating or conducting work on JBER would be classified as a SQG or a VSQG.

The HAZMAT/Environmental portion is filled with JBER specific information requirements. Will the government either provide copies of the JBER specific forms or provide access to an electronic site for download?

ANSWER: The Government can provide the JBER specific information and forms if required for execution of this project. There are no HazWaste(s) that have been identified with the bridges as constructed.

Private companies aren’t subject to AFIs or OPLANS, and FAR Clause 52.223-3 appears to only apply to contractors who are delivering supplies to the government. Could the contracting officer provide clarification and provide the HAZMAT requirements that will be contained in the contract?

ANSWER: The Government can impose requirements deemed applicable to a contractor or any other entity conducting work on a federal facility, including Air Force (AFI) and installation specific requirements.

What is AFFARS clause 5352.223-9303? Is it a valid AFFARS clause? If so, will it be inserted in the contract? If yes, where may this clause be reviewed?

ANSWER: FAR clause 52.223-3 will be incorporated at contract award. AFFARS clause 5352.223-9303 is no longer an applicable AFFARS clause.

Why is the government concerned this demolition contract has an EPCRA enforcement clause? Does the government know of some danger in the area of the Eagle Glen Golf Course? Is there a danger of pesticides, lead paint, PCBs or other dangerous chemicals or substances in the areas of the bridges? Are PCBs suspected to be contained in any of the piping or conduit transiting the bridges? Were pesticides and or herbicides used in unsafe quantities in the vicinity of the bridges? Will the contractor assume responsibility for any of these toxins, if found, in the bridge areas?

ANSWER: EPCRA is applicable only if the contractor intends to bring HazMat onto the installation. EPCRA Tier II reporting for JBER includes mandatory reporting on the storage and usage of certain hazardous chemical constituents, not necessarily those spilled or released to the environment. A basic summary of the hazardous material environmental requirements (exclusive of OSHA) are as follows:

1. Contractors must submit proposed hazardous material list to the CO for approval prior to bringing the material on JBER to use in the performance of the contract. The government will determine if any of the applicable products are exempt from tracking based on this information.

2. Contractor must maintain an inventory of the hazardous materials on site during the performance of the work, to include SDS sheets upon request by the government.

3. Annually, or at the end of the contract, whichever comes first: Contractor will provide data on the quantity of each tracked (see #1) hazardous material which was used during the performance of the contract (eg. quantity in lbs, gallons, #of containers).

4. See previous responses regarding piping, contamination, and HazMat.

Rather than requesting usage of materials that are banned, would the government provide a list of banned chemicals and items?

ANSWER: No. The contractor is required to supply the government with a list of HazMat (chemicals) necessary to complete the project and the list will be reviewed to determine if the chemicals are allowed on base.

What is OPLAN 19-3, Annex F? It is not one of the documents posted with the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation. Where is this document? How may it be obtained? Is there an electronic repository for this document? If not, could the government post with the Combined Synopsis?

ANSWER: The OPLAN is a JBER-specific document which implements AFI 32-7086 (Hazardous Materials Management) requirements for hazardous material usage on the installation. AFI 32-7086 can be provided for review. Specifically, Annex F contains the requirements to provide the government with a list of chemicals (HazMat) to be used on base during the project. JBER has a process to review all chemicals used on the installation and provide approval for those chemicals. To reiterate, this requirement is only applicable if the contractor intends to bring HazMat onto the installation. If so, then the requirement under this section is to provide a list of chemicals, properly manage and store those chemicals, and properly dispose of any waste generated as a result of using those chemicals. This paragraph refers to an “Attachment A” that is not attached to any of the Synopsis documents. The only attachments embedded in the PWS are maps of the bridges and haul routes. As it appears to be a task associated with a cost, could the government provide this document prior to the due date of proposals?

This paragraph refers to an “Attachment A” that is not attached to any of the Synopsis documents. The only attachments embedded in the PWS are maps of the bridges and haul routes. As it appears to be a task associated with a cost, could the government provide this document prior to the due date of proposals?

ANSWER: Attachment A is the JBER hazardous material inventory and usage tracking form. This form has been provided to the CO for inclusion as applicable. This is only required if the contractor brings HazMat onto the installation and after award of a contract.

This entire environmental section routinely uses undefined temporal words and phrases such as immediately, days, duty day, end of day, etc. Would the government clarify all uses of these words and phrases?

ANSWER: Each of these words pertain to specific situations and are used in their proper context.

The PWS has multiple storage standards for fuel quantities. Will the government clarify the fuel storage standard? If not changed in the PWS, which standard are contractors obligated to follow, the more stringent or the less stringent?

ANSWER: Any fuel container 55-gallons or larger requires secondary containment, unless it is a mobile source such as a refueling truck. Spill containment will be used when refueling equipment.

What is the JBER approved digital GIS format? Is this a requirement for the company to operate a GIS system? If so, what GIS software is JBER using? Is the requirement to provide a shape file, a full GIS layer, or will a hand written lat/long suffice?

ANSWER: There is no requirement for the contractor to provide information in a GIS format or to utilize GIS when conducting this project. If there is a spill the contractor will provide the location using GPS coordinates.

Why is the government specifying the need for a bulletin board or job site trailer?

ANSWER: The government does not specify the use of a bulletin board or a job trailer. If there is a bulletin board or job trailer at the site, then the spill placard shall be displayed openly in those locations. Otherwise the contractor shall find appropriate locations to display the spill placard(s).

Will the government provide the special JBER placard being mandated?

ANSWER: Yes.

What and where is the Attachment C referenced in this section? There are only two attachments embedded in the PWS and neither is labeled Attachment C.

ANSWER: As referenced in the PWS, Attachment C is the Spill Placard.

Is this a new requirement or is there an incumbent vendor?

Answer: This is a new requirement.