DRAFT_RFP_QA_-_FINAL_20_Feb_13.xls
XLS spreadsheet 135 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) Performance-Based Remediation (PBR) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8903-12-R-0033
About this file
Government responses to questions pertaining to the DRAFT RFP.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 45
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR VANDENBERG PBR -- FA8903-12-R-0033 | |||||
| # | QUESTION | RESPONSE | REQUIRES CHANGE IN SOW | SOW Paragraph revised. | |
| 1 | Does the Air Force prefer that the contractor develop and maintain a SharePoint site for use by the contractors, Air Force, and State regulators working on these projects? | In accordance with SOO paragraph 4.1, the contractor shall establish and maintain a document repository. Reference revised DRAFT SOO. | |||
| 2 | How many VAFB offices must provide approval for each dig permit (Forms 103 and 332)? | AF Form 332 and Work Clearance/Dig permit 103 must receive an approval through approximately twenty one offices. A list of offices is provided on the Google site. | |||
| 3 | How many weeks does it take to obtain a completed dig permit? | It takes between four to eight weeks. | |||
| 4 | When does a dig permit expire and require a new one to be started? | Once the Dig permit 103 is signed, the work must start within two months. Otherwise the permit will expire and Form 103 needs to be re-started again. | |||
| 5 | Will VAFB provide security escorts for facilities that require it, or should the contractor include this in its price? | VAFB will not provide security escorts. | |||
| 6 | Will VAFB provide UXO monitors for sites in UXO areas, or should the contractor include this in its price? | No, VAFB will not be providing UXO monitors. Should UXO monitors be necessary, the contractor will be responsible for such support. | Yes, however any discussions with the regulators will not be binding nor have any impact on the minimum objectives for this PBR. | ||
| 7 | Will VAFB provide biological monitors for sites containing natural resources of concern, or should the contractor include this in its price? | The contractor will not be responsible for hiring and maintaining biological monitors. This requirement will be covered under a separate contract. | The contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to meet the objectives of this task order. | ||
| 8 | Will VAFB provide archaeological monitors and Native American monitors for sites containing cultural resources, or should the contractor include this in its price? | The contractor will not be responsible for hiring and maintaining archaeological and Native American monitors. This requirement will be covered under a separate contract. | |||
| 9 | How soon after requesting monitors from VAFB Utility Shop, Electrical Shop, and Cable Affairs will monitors be made available to fulfill requirements of a dig permit? | It depends on the Utility Shop, Electrical Shop and Cable Affairs schedule. It may take two weeks for the monitors to be available. | |||
| 10 | When monitors from VAFB Utility Shop, Electrical Shop, or Cable Affairs do not show up for monitoring appointments, how soon afterward will they reschedule another appointment? | It depends on the schedule. The Shops are very busy with limited staff. | |||
| 11 | How often do monitors from VAFB Utility Shop, Electrical Shop, or Cable Affairs fail to show up for monitoring appointments? | Between 5 & 10% of the time they fail to show up on time. Most of this is just running late, due to unforeseen circumstances and limited staff. Prior to appointment call them, just as a reminder. | |||
| 12 | Will the no digging rules 48 hours before a launch and 24 hours after a launch continue to remain in effect during the years of performance of the PBC? | The policy limiting the nature and extent of digging before a launch is signed by the Base Commander and is periodically updated. The existing 30 SW Digging Permit and Communications Lockdown Policy requires that "commencing 48-hours prior to major launch operations, all excavation work will cease when it is within 15 feet of known underground communications, electrical, natural gas, gaseous nitrogen, or water lines." This requirement does not stipulate that all digging outside 15 feet of any underground lines cease, that decision is made depending on the reliability of the utility locations at the site. Some contractors have voluntarily chosen to cease digging altogether. In addition to the limitations to digging prior to a launch an Evacuation plan is also distributed that "requires the evacuation of all non-essential personnel (NEP) located inside the Impact Limit Line (ILL)" identified for the particular launch. It also requires that "all commercial or privately-owned vehicles be removed" and if that is not the case for large equipment then a "hold harmless memo on company letterhead from an authorizing agent for the vehicles/equipment releasing the U.S. Government from all liability" must be delivered to the Launch Support Team (LST) Chief no less than 48 hours prior to the day of launch." Please note that the evacuation plan varies between the different launch facilities on the base. Example copies of these letters have been posted on the Google site. In addition, the two forms required for digging, AF 332 and 103 are available on the Google site. | |||
| 13 | How often are launches delayed or postponed, and what is the average duration of the delay or postponement? | The actual number of launches vary from year to year and can be anywhere between 6 to 15. It is difficult to quantify how often launches are delayed as there are several variables involved including weather and/or equipment, etc. both on VAFB and at the off site tracking facilities. | |||
| 14 | Will indoor air sampling be required as part of the site inspection and/or remedial investigation for any sites in the PBC? | Potential offerors shall meet all regulatory requirements needed to achieve either the MPO or the proposed objective beyond the MPO. In addition, all offerors will be required to maintain compliance requirements for sites included in the PBR IAW regulatory procedures. Offerors are solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming independent, professional conclusions/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to meet the objectives of the solicitation and resultant contract. | |||
| 15 | For site CB024 (Anderson Peak), since the 13-mile mountain access road is narrow and unsafe for heavy trucks and equipment, will the Air Force make safety improvements to the road prior to soil removal? | The Air Force does not currently have any plan to repair the road at the site. | |||
| 16 | Since impacted soil areas at MY247, MY248, and MY249 are traversed by the natural gas main pipeline and numerous critical fiber optic communications cables, will VAFB pay for their relocation during excavation, or should the contractor include that in its price? | The Air Force will not pay for any relocation of gas main pipeline or fiber optic communication cables. Should this be necessary, the contractor will be responsible for relocation. The contractor must coordinate with the Base Civil Engineering prior to any excavation. | |||
| 17 | Since drilling and potential soil excavation at MY247, MY248, and MY249 may require removal of very large eucalyptus trees near overhead power lines, will VAFB pay for the tree removal, or should the contractor include that in its price? | The Air Force will not pay to have eucalyptus trees removed. In accordance with SOO Section 8.0, the contractor shall incorporate green and sustainable remediation techniques whenever possible. | |||
| 18 | Since potential soil removal from ST171 is likely to trigger a NEPA review and potential months of delay, will the Air Force pay for the NEPA review, or should the contractor include that in its price and schedule? If the Air Force will provide the NEPA review, how long does the Air Force take to complete a NEPA review and potential Environmental Impact Statement? | If an offeror determines that a NEPA review is required to reach a proposed objective on a site, then that offeror should include the required review as part of the proposed technical approach/price/schedule. This is a performance-based effort. Each offeror is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to meet the minimum performance objectives (MPOs) or propose objectives beyond the MPOs in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation. | |||
| 19 | What guidance have State regulators provided on how closely soil borings should be spaced to investigate the several miles of POL lines as part of site PL351? | This is a performance-based effort. Each offeror is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to meet the minimum performance objectives (MPOs) or propose objectives beyond the MPOs in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation. Offerors must review the documentation provided on the Google site (as listed in the Key Documents List) to obtain specific information regarding direction from State regulators as pertains to particular sites. | |||
| 20 | Since the AOC/AOI sites have been moved into the IRP program, will the PBR contractor be required to follow the CERCLA process for each AOC or AOI site? | The contractor will follow CERCLA process and the Final Background and Standard Approach (BSA) Revision 5 (posted to the Google site). | |||
| 21 | Will SC be obtainable for sites located in currently mapped UXO areas (if UXO clearance has not been completed)? | Site Close-out (SC) for collocated IRP and MMRP sites are independent of each other. | |||
| 22 | Biological, archaeological, and cultural restrictions at IRP sites are forms of land use restrictions/ controls but are not related to environmental contamination; please clarify if one or more of these will affect ability to obtain site closure. | Meeting the requirements of Site Close-out (SC) for an IRP site is independent of collocated biological, archaeological, and cultural restrictions. The presence of biological, archaeological and/or cultural items at a site will require additional coordination in order to be in compliance with the laws that govern these resources while conducting a remedial action. | |||
| 23 | Please list the sites that contain RCRA F-listed waste. | VAFB's solvent waste does not meet the requirements for F-listing under 40 CFR 261 Subpart D. Instead, VAFB follows 40 CFR 261 Subpart C (Federal Rules) and Title 22 Chapter 11(California Rules) to demonstrate that the "environmental media" (soil, groundwater, etc.) does not meet the characteristic waste consistent with the EPA’s "contained-in policy” (66 CFR 27266, 27286, May 16, 2001). | |||
| 24 | We understand Site 45 is not included within the scope of this contract. Will sites under this proposal where USTs are indicated to have been transferred to Site 45 (or specific USTs within a particular site) fall outside the scope of this contract? | Site 45 does not exist. All USTs have been identified as a separate Site. Please see Table 1 in SOO. | |||
| 25 | Will the VAFB Base Landfill be available to contractors for disposal of non-hazardous waste (soil, construction debris, vegetation) at no additional cost to Contractor? | Yes, the Base Landfill will be available to the winning contractor for disposal of non-hazardous waste that is characterized as necessary and is demonstrated to be consistent with the Base Landfill permit restrictions. | |||
| 26 | Will the existing asbestos management program address all asbestos containing materials already identified, or discovered as part of this contract? | No. VAFB asbestos management program (30 CES/CEANQ) will not address the asbestos containing materials that are encountered during an IRP remedial action. However, this program will assist the winning contractor with existing files and compliance requirements should removal action in a building, that has asbestos, be deemed necessary as part of this contract. If that is the case then the contractor will be responsible for the necessary survey and/or abatement requirements in accordance with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986 (AHARA). | |||
| 27 | Please provide a list of SOO sites where the proposed remedy is anticipated to require an Initial Studies effort by the contractor to address State-perceived significant environmental effects. | This is a performance-based effort. Each offeror is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to meet the minimum performance objectives (MPOs) or propose objectives beyond the MPOs in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation. | |||
| 28 | Will contractors be required to prepare a Munitions and Explosives of Concern Avoidance and Construction Support Plan prior to working in UXO excluded areas as defined by the latest MMRP work? | Yes. Prior to working in UXO excluded areas, the contractor will be required to prepare a UXO Construction Support Plan. | |||
| 29 | Will AFCEC make available on the FTP site all correspondence related to TRIAD meetings on AOC/AOI sites that document discussions held and agreements reached among stakeholders regarding NFAs, site closures and/or additional work required to achieve SCs, including e-mail correspondence that may not be documented elsewhere? | All TRIAD meetings on AOC/AOI sites have document discussions held and agreement reached are in the Google site. All the documented discussions are included in an appendix of the respective Final Report. | |||
| 30 | If a site was previously closed with restrictions (i.e. risk-based closure) by the Agencies, is VAFB going to require the site to be re-opened and closed for unrestricted use in order to achieve SC per the definition in the SOO? | Offerors must adhere to definitions established in Enclosure 5, Acronyms and Definitions, of the SOO, including the definition for SC. | |||
| 31 | With respect to trucking for soil transport and disposal purposes, are vehicle tare weights required? | Yes. Tare weights for excavated soils will be required. All transport and disposal actions of all waste streams will need to be coordinated through the Base Hazardous Waste Program Manager (30 CES/CEANQ). | |||
| 32 | Will the Contractor be allowed to provide jump scales at their own cost to replace the requirement of using base scales prior to offsite transport of all trucks? | Yes. Calibrated jump scales will be allowed to reduce unnecessary mileage associated with the transportation remediation waste to other portions of the Base. Please note that all transport and disposal actions of all waste streams will need to be coordinated through the Base Hazardous Waste Program Manager (30 CES/CEANQ). | |||
| 33 | Will the Contractor be required to establish and maintain an ftp site or portal to support the awarded contract? | Reference answer to Question #1. | |||
| 34 | Will cost impacts associated with changes in the VAFB security policies and procedures (that may lead to delayed site access or initiation of work, receipt of materials, etc.) post award be the responsibility of the contractor? | This is a performance-based acquisition. The resultant contract will be FFP and will include the performance objectives proposed by the successful offeror. The Government will expect the awarded contractor to meet the performance objectives proposed. The contractor will have all the remedies available in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) regarding what it considers changes to the contract, differing site conditions, etc. Each situation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The CO will make determinations concerning scope, site conditions, etc. | |||
| 35 | Are there any facilities (warehouse storage, etc) available for the contractor to use? | There is no existing office space available for Contractors, however a location for a “lay-down area” and office trailer can be provided, with coordination though CEAOP, in the Cantonment Area. | |||
| 36 | What are the insurance requirements for this contract? | Contract Insurance Compliance Requirements are IAW FAR 52.228-5. | |||
| 37 | Will damage to project-related equipment (including remediation system infrastructure, monitoring wells, heavy equipment on a jobsite, etc) caused by VAFB staff, unknown third parties, weather events, or failing VAFB infrastructure be the responsibility of the contractor to repair at no additional compensation? | Per DFARS 245.107 (6), FAR Clause 52.245-1 (Alternate 1) will be removed. The Contractor shall not be liable for loss of Government property furnished or acquired under this contract with the exceptions as listed in FAR Clause 52.245-1: Government Property (April 2012). FAR Clause 52.245-1, Alternate I, will be replaced with 52.245-1 in the Final RFP. | |||
| 38 | Will biological and cultural monitors continue to be provided by VAFB? | Reference answers to Questions #7 and #8. | |||
| 39 | What is the timeframe for the Form 332/103 process, and if there are delays beyond the specified timeframe while waiting for these permits to be approved, will the contractor be allowed to modify the IMS/MPS? | Reference answers to Questions #2, #3, and #4. Changes in the IMS/MPS may be made with concurrence from the COR and CO dependent on the circumstances surrounding the requested adjustment. | |||
| 40 | Will the contractor be responsible for completing and submitting pre-notifications to the USFWS for activities that may impact endangered or threatened species? If so, will these documents be subject to review and approval of the VAFB natural resources department prior to submitting them and what would be the expected timeframe for completion of reviews? | All contacts and consultations (both informal and formal) with USFWS are made directly by 30 CES/CEANC. VAFB has a Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) with USFWS (8-8-09-F-10) regarding project activities that may adversely affect any federally listed species analyzed within as part of the programmatic biological assessment of routine mission operations and maintenance activities at VAFB. Site investigations and remedial activities conducted as part of the IRP program are included within the PBO. The Air Force must notify the USFWS in writing of their intention to conduct any project activities under the PBO at least 30 days in advanced of starting a project. 30 CES/CEANC has a pre-notification template consistent with the terms and conditions outlined in the PBO. The winning Contractor is expected to provide VAFB with key background and technical information as well as maps to support generation of the notice. The USFWS will attempt to respond to the notifications within 30 days but they will not guarantee that they can complete their review within the prescribed timeframe. | |||
| 41 | Will the contractor be allowed to use onsite borrow pits as a source for backfill material? If yes, what is the location(s) of the borrow pit(s) at VAFB, will they be available throughout POP, and are there any restrictions associated with using the borrow pit(s)? | On site borrow pits may be available as a source of backfill material with coordination with 30 CES/CEOHP. However, restoration requirements do not supersede mission requirements; therefore, there may be occasions that backfill material is not available from on-site borrow pits. A map with the locations and general soil types has been added to the Google site. | |||
| 42 | Will habitat restoration as required due to potential impacts to endangered or threatened species by project activities be the responsibility of the contractor? | Refer to the answer for Question #40. | |||
| 43 | IRP fuels sites ST001, ST002, and ST060: Will the PBR contractor be required to follow the CERCLA process for these sites considering they are fuels sites? | All sites falling under the IRP shall follow the CERCLA process. Fuel sites follow the LUFT program with the CECRLA equivalent documentation. | |||
| 44 | Site WP013: Is there sand blast grit in the Pad 1 Area of Site 13C that has not been characterized and which would require removal to achieve SC? | This is a performance-based effort. Each offeror is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to meet the minimum performance objectives (MPOs) or propose objectives beyond the MPOs in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation. Refer to SOO, Enclosure 4, Acronyms and Definitions. Please refer to the Key Documents List and all information available on the Google site. | |||
| 45 | Sites LF018, 022, and 023: Copies of the OM&M Plans for these sites are not included on the ftp site; please provide copies of these plans on the ftp site before the final RFP is issued? | ROD documents, detailing OM&M requirements for all three sites are available on the Google site. Also available on the site are Five Year Reviews and Monitoring reports detailing the O&M requirements. | |||
| 46 | Site LF020: In the site summary slide under “History,” the last bullet states that the ROD will be finalized by Dec 2012. What is the current status, and does “finalized” mean issued for review and signature as a final, or accepted and signed as final? Please provide the most recent version of the ROD (even if draft or draft-final) on the ftp site before the final RFP is issued. | Site LF020 ROD has not yet been finalized. The Draft version of the ROD is dated March 2012 and is uploaded on the Google site. Draft responses to the DTSC and RWQCB comments were submitted to the State on October 19, 2012. Projected submittal date for the Final ROD is April 2013. Regulatory comments and Air Force responses on the Draft ROD are posted to the Google site. A copy of the unsigned Final ROD is posted to the Google site. | |||
| 47 | Site FT021: A copy of the Final RACR Risk Assessment prepared by Versar for Site FT021 is not included on the ftp site and is required to assess residual post remedial risk; please provide a copy of this document on the ftp site before the Final RFP is issued? | A copy of the Final Residential Human Health Risk Assessment Tech Memo will be loaded onto the Google site before the Final RFP is issued. | |||
| 48 | Site LF023: The 2009 ROD-RAP lists “post-remediation monitoring of wastes left in place” as a requirement. Is this a visual inspection only? What is the frequency of the monitoring? Please provide copies of past inspection/monitoring reports on the ftp site before the final RFP is issued. | The ROD document (available on the Google site) specifies the required post remediation monitoring. Historical inspection/monitoring reports are posted to the Google site. The Offeror should refer to the IRP Site 23 Habitat Restoration Monitoring - Year 3, dated Sept 2012. | |||
| 49 | Site ST042: What is the power availability at Building 7501? | There is power at Bldg 7501. Refer to Section 7.4 of the SOO. | |||
| 50 | Site CG147: What is the status of the RI Report for CG-147? Please provide the most recent version (even if draft or draft-final) of the RI report on the ftp site? | The final Report for CG-147 has been provided in the Google site. Applicable documents are AOC/AOI evaluations (SI documents) and will refer to this as AOC-147. | |||
| 51 | Site PL351: Features associated with PL351 have reportedly been transferred to Site 45. Please clarify whether the former pump houses and USTs/ASTs that have been transferred to Site 45 remain within the scope of PL351? | Site 45 does not exist. The former pump houses and any potential USTs/ASTs will remain under PL351. | |||
| 52 | Site AB139: What is the status of the AB139 FS Report, and what is the anticipated timeframe for receipt of regulatory review comments? Please provide any regulatory comments received on the AB139 FS Report if such comments are received prior to the PBR proposal due date. | Offerors shall refer to Alternative Analysis/FS, conducted in December 2003 and the IRP Site 139 report, dated 2011. | |||
| 53 | Assessment prepared by Versar for Site SD021 is not included on the ftp site and is required to assess residual post remedial risk; please provide a copy of this document on the ftp site before the final RFP is issued? | A copy of the Final Residential Human Health Risk Assessment Tech Memo will be loaded onto the Google site before the Final RFP is issued. | |||
| 54 | Sites AOC 247, AOC 248 and AOC 249: What solvents were distributed to these Former Maintenance Yards via the solvent distribution lines? | Refer to the Final Report for MY247, MY248 and MY249. (AR 2682 - Revised Final Site Investigation Report, Areas of Concern and Areas of Interest Volume 3 of 3, MWH, June 2009 ) | |||
| 55 | Sites AOC 240 and AOC 250 have similar former uses as AOC 247, AOC 248, and AOC 249 which show the presence of a solvent distribution line; however AOC 240 and AOC 250 do not indicate the presence of a solvent distribution line. Is there a similar line at AOC 240 and AOC 250? | Refer to the Final Reports for MY240 and MY250. (AR 2682 - Revised Final Site Investigation Report, Areas of Concern and Areas of Interest Volume 3 of 3, MWH, June 2009 ) | |||
| 56 | Sites AOC240 - AOC250: There is anecdotal evidence that fiber optic lines are present at some of the AOC 240 through AOC 250 Former Maintenance sites. Their presence and construction will affect the engineering plans and costs for sites where excavation is a part of the proposed remedy or action. Will the Air Force identify the locations of all fiber optic lines, and provide engineering drawings for the lines and their conduits for these sites, and for all other sites identified in the SOO, for development of the proposal. | The Air Force will identify the locations of most of the fiber optic lines during the Form 332/103 Process. The Air Force will not provide any engineering drawings for the lines and their conduits for these sites during the proposal time. | |||
| 57 | Existing data from the Anderson Peak Optical Site (CB024) in Big Sur indicates some soil and soil gas issues that need to be resolved. To achieve SC it may be necessary to remove some of the existing structures at the site. Are any of these structures mission-critical, and will the contractor be responsible for replacement of the structures? | CB024 is an inactive site. There is no mission critical structure at the facility. | |||
| 58 | SOO Section 4.0, Milestone Payment Schedule (page 13 of 34), last paragraph states “…the government may require consideration or cause the contractor to continue work in delinquent status should a delay be determined to be the [sole?] fault of the contractor.” We assume this paragraph means the Contractor shall continue work past the expiration of funds, at no cost to the government, until the milestone is achieved – but it does not extend beyond the POP of the Contract? Please also define “consideration” in the context of the PBR? | SOO Section 4.0 has been modified as follows: “If the Contractor has to continue working beyond the performance objective date to achieve a final milestone (applies to Sub-CLIN dates only) the Contractor shall submit a period of performance extension request to the Contracting Officer at least 60 days prior to the expiration date of the Sub-CLIN. However, the Contractor shall not perform work after the funding associated with the milestone cancels. Specifically, completion of activities cannot exceed 30 days prior to the end of the fiscal year five years from the date of exercising of the Sub-CLIN. However, the Contractor will not receive payment until milestones are achieved in accordance with the MPS. The Contractor may receive a negative past performance rating for delays in achievement of performance objectives.” | |||
| 59 | SOO Section 4.4.1 (page 16-17 of 34) – Does participation in the weekly project teleconferences require attendance of all key project staff, or attendance at the discretion of the PBR contractor depending on the topics on the agenda? | Appropriate personnel (for agenda topics) should be available for weekly calls. | |||
| 60 | SOO Section 4.8.1 (page 19 of 34) states “Pursuant to CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9621(e)), no federal, state, or local permits shall be required for onsite removal or remedial actions. The Contractor must consult with the Air Force prior to obtaining environmental permits for onsite CERCLA activities. For non-CERCLA restoration sites, the Contractor shall assist the Air Force to comply with all applicable permit conditions, including payment of permit fees”. Since VAFB is not a CERCLA site but is following the CERCLA process, are permits required for onsite pre-treatment of non-CERCLA wastes? | Permits are not required for the VAFB program. | |||
| 61 | SOO Section 4.10 (page 20 of 34) - Will the Contractor be provided CAC cards that include full escort privileges without requiring AF coordination for all subcontractor and vendor base access. | The prime contractor will be provided a limited number of CACs with limited escort privileges. However, the contractor with base passes will not have access to restricted areas without an official escort. | |||
| 62 | SOO Section 4.11.1 (page 21 of 34) states “Contractor is responsible for obtaining UXO escorts…” but Attachment 6 (Environmental Contract Support…” does not list UXO escorts as provided by VAFB. Please clarify. | The Contractor is responsible for providing appropriately qualified UXO escorts. | |||
| 63 | SOO Section 8.3 (page 31 of 34) related to ERPIMS submittals: |
a. Recognizing that sampling schedules may change as the contract progresses, is the ERPIMS submission schedule that is required within 30 days of contract award intended to cover the duration of the contract?
b. Will AFCEC ensure that the PBR contractor has uninterrupted access to ERPIMS in order to meet the MPS schedule?
c. Based on our experience with ERPIMS submittals, will AFCEC consider a 120 day submission schedule rather than 90 days?
d. Since sample collection dates will vary between the 107 sites included in the SOO, requiring submissions within 90 days of sample collection could mean weekly or more frequent ERPIMS submissions – is this AFCEC’s intent, or can the contractor work with AFCEC to “modify” the schedule based on sampling frequency, number of samples, and what is most efficient and cost-effective? For example, change the requirement to “within 90 days of the sampling event.”
e. What defines a sample event? If we collect a few step-out samples after a submission has been completed, or 5-10 groundwater samples on a quarterly basis, are we required to create a new deliverable or can these be combined with another planned deliverable? a. Yes, this submission is intended to cover the duration of the contract.
b. Uninterrupted access cannot be guaranteed.
c. No, AFCEC requires submittal within 90 days.
d. The current requirement in accordance with SOO Section 8.3 is that ERPIMS be submitted within 90 days of sample collection.
e. In the examples provided as part of this question, separate deliverables would be required.
| 64 | Site TU563 is listed in the SOO but not in Attachment L-6 (CLIN… Structure). Please clarify if this site is included in the RFP. Also, please clarify if Site TU456, which is not listed in the revised CLIN structure, is included in the RFP. | TU563 will be included in the revised Attachment L-6 with the Final RFP. TU456 is not included in the SOO, Table 1 and is not part of this requirement. |
| 65 | Attachment 1E6 Enclosure 6 (page 270 of 305) states, under Base Metadata: "The Contractor shall run Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software on all .pdf AR/IR document files to produce searchable text." Is this limited to all .pdf documents to be produced under the pending PBR contract, or does it potentially include every .pdf document within the A/R? | The contractor shall publish documents in pdf (in addition to the hard copy) for inclusion in the AR. The contractor will not be responsible for OCR of legacy documents. |
| 66 | Section L.2.1.7 (page 3 of 27) states “Any business entity without a TA or LOI with the Prime is NOT considered a Team Member and will not be evaluated”, while Section L.4.9 (page 19 of 27) states “Three (3) of the five (5) projects must be from the Prime contractor or a Teaming Partner with a formal teaming arrangement. The Offeror shall include the exact same copies of the project summaries in the volume for Factor 2, Past Performance.” Does Section L.4.9 mean that 2 of the 5 projects could come from a second-tier subcontractor (e.g. a subcontractor to a Team Member)? | Two of the projects can be submitted at the discretion of the proposing offeror. They can come from second-tier subcontractors if the offeror so chooses. |
| 67 | Section L.4.6 (page 16 of 27) states that “A technical memorandum documenting the evaluations has been prepared by the Air Force and is identified in Enclosure 2 of the SOO.” We could not locate this important document within the listed key documents contained in attachment IE2. Please provide the full document name to enable contractors to better locate this important document that reportedly contains baseline statistical groundwater evaluations completed by the Air Force for nine sites. | Potential offerors shall refer to the Final Vandenberg Baseline Contamination Tech Memo provided on the Google site. |
| 68 | Section L.4.9 (page 19 of 27) states “For projects that are actively being performed, performance must be substantially complete (minimum 51% complete as of the date of solicitation for this contract) while L.5.5 (page 21 of 27) states “… (minimum 50% complete as of the date of solicitation for this TO)”. We assume AFCEC means 50%? However, it is sometimes difficult to measure percent complete for PBRs – does AFCEC mean 50% of the POP complete, or 50% of some other metric? | Section L, 5.5 will be corrected to reflect a minimum of 51% complete as of the date of solicitation. Clarification will be provided that explains 51% will be estimated as work completed, rather than PoP or dollar amount expended. |
| 69 | Section L.7.4.1 (page 26 of 27) identifies the Small Business (SB) subcontracting goal as 21% of total proposed subcontracting dollars and Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) goal as 5% of total proposed subcontracting dollars, while Section M.1.5 (page 8 of 14) identifies the SB subcontracting goal as 21% of total obligated dollars, while SDB is still 5% of total subcontracted dollars. Please clarify. | Both Sections L and M will be corrected as follows: Section L - Small Business Goal - 21% of total proposed dollars; Small Disadvantaged Business Goal - 5% of total proposed subcontracting dollars; and Section M - Small Business Goal - 21% of total proposed dollars; Small Disadvantaged Business Goal - 5% of total proposed subcontracting dollars. |
| 70 | Section M.c - Price Factor (Page 13 of 14) – the SOO (Section 1.2, page 2-3 of 34) indicates that “It is desirable to the Air Force that life-cycle costs (LCC) be reduced.” Will the offerors estimated LCCs be evaluated compared to their “total evaluated price” (i.e. the portion of the LCC that falls within the POP) and if so, how would each be weighted? | The LCC will be evaluated as part of Sub-Factor 1.1, Technical Approach. However, the offeror will not provide their entire LCC within this Sub-Factor information. Instead, the offeror shall provide the post-PoP LCC, unescalated, on an FY13 basis, by fiscal year and by site. The Government will use the price provided under Factor 5 and the post-PoP LCC for each site included under Sub-Factor 1.1 to calculate the offeror's total LCC. |
| 71 | Minor discrepancies within the RFP: |
a. after the “Environmental Contract Support for Vandenberg AFB – Base Support Letter” there were two pages that began “Please wait. . . If this message is not eventually replaced by the proper contents of the document….” Should we ignore these pages, or if not, what should be there?
b. comparing the RFP with the Part III – List of Documents, Exhibits & Attachments, Section J – List of Attachments (page 72 of 72) there were the following discrepancies
• Attachment 1E1, SOO Enclosure 1 Site List, was listed as having 4 pages, but there are only 3 pages in the RFP.
• Attachment 1E2, SOO Enclosure 2 – Key Documents List, was listed as having 121 pages, but there are 119 pages in the RFP.
• Attachment 1E5, SOO Enclosure 5 – Acronyms and Definitions, was listed as having 3 pages, but there are 6 pages.
• Attachment 2, Website Addresses in Support of PBR Statement of Objectives (SOO), is labeled in the RFP as Attachment 3 when it probably should be labeled as Attachment 2.
• Attachment 3, the General Decision Number, is labeled as Attachment 4 in the RFP when it probably should be labeled as Attachment 3.
• Attachment 5, Environmental Contract Support for Vandenberg AFB – Base Support Letter, is labeled as Attachment 6 in the RFP when it probably should be labeled as Attachment 5.
• Attachment 6, Requisitioned Government Furnished Property, is listed as 1 page, but it was not listed in the RFP (although p. 57 of the RFP states that “Upon award of the contract document, the successful offeror will be required to complete Attachment 6 and 7 as applicable.”). Is this Att 1E3, p 261-262?
• Likewise, Attachment 7, Scheduled Government Furnished Property, is listed as 1 page, but it was not listed in the RFP. Is this Att 1E3, p 261-262? a. These pages have been replaced with Department of Defense Forms for Government Property.
b. Attachments and page numbers will be corrected for the Final RFP. Government Property will be included on two DoD Forms, Requisitioned Government Property and Scheduled Government Property at award. Actual attachments will be included with the Final RFP release. Forms can also be found at the following links: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/pc/docs/RequisitionedGovernmentFurnishedProperty-VERSION1.3_distributed_0005.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/pc/docs/ScheduledGovernmentFurnishedProperty-VERSION1.4_distributed_.pdf 72 The Air Force’s/AFCEE’s Fiscal Year (FY) Acquisition Plan for 2011 indicated a total number of sites under the Vandenberg AFB PBR at 311 with a corresponding rough order of magnitude (ROM) of between $150 and $180 million. This number of sites and ROM remained consistent throughout the published 2012 and 2013 FY acquisition plans, with the exception that the number of sites was reduced to 310 in subsequent publications.
The 17 May, 2012 “original synopsis” indicated the number of sites at 108 with the ROM remaining unchanged at between $150 and $180 million. Subsequent revisions reduced the number of sites to 107 with the ROM again, unchanged.
The recent Draft RFP, indicates the recognized 107 sites with the ROM being increased to between $155 and $185 million.
| We request the Air Force clarify the rationale associated with a reduction in the number of sites without a corresponding revisions ROM, and, if possible, provide a brief discussion on the increase in the latest DRAFT RFP ROM. | All prior information concerning numbers of sites and estimated ROMs were estimates based on the information available at the time. As the Air Force refines requirements and produces more accurate estimates for these requirements, ROMs may change with respect to the number of sites included. This is based partially on minimum objectives, site information, and appropriate escalation factors. | ||
| 73 | We request the Air Force verify and/or update the bonding stream example provided with the original synopsis dated 17 May 2012. | A new bonding stream will be provided as part of the Key Documents List and posted to the Google site prior to Final RFP release. | |
| 74 | We request the Air Force provide updates to the anticipated final RFP release date, proposal due date and anticipated award date. | A revised schedule is included in the pre-solicitation notice. This schedule is subject to change. Additionally, updates to major milestones can be found on the AFCEC website. | |
| 75 | When will the Acquisition Plan be established and formally communicated to the Contractors? | Approval has been obtained regarding the acquisition strategy for this requirement. VAFB PBR will be issued under full and open competition. | |
| 76 | Will Air Force acceptance and/or approval of work be any more stringent and rigorous than that required by EPA or the state agencies? | The Air Force will follow the CERCLA process for all sites in this requirement. In addition, the Definitions included in SOO Enclosure 4, Acronyms and Definitions must be adhered to. Whether or not the Air Force will be more or less stringent and rigorous than the standards required by the EPA or state agencies will be dependent on the particular conditions surrounding a site and its established performance objective. | |
| 77 | Will the PBR Contractor be responsible for any fines, penalties, or settlements assessed in association with work under this contract for which they are not in control nor deemed responsible for causing? | Each particular situation would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The contractor will have all remedies available in the FAR regarding changes and differing site conditions. Fines and penalties will be the responsibility of the contractor if it is determined that the contractor's actions resulted in the issuance of a fine, penalty, or settlement. | |
| 78 | With respect to regulatory involvement, can the PBR Contractor assume the Air Force will support the regulatory and technical approaches presented in the PBR Contractor’s awarded proposal, upon their implementation? | The Air Force is not incorporating the offeror's technical approach into the resultant contract for this acquisition. The Air Force is buying the proposed performance objective for each of the sites included in the PBR. The offeror who receives award of the contract will be responsible for meeting the objectives proposed. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to obtain these objectives while insuring compliance with regulatory requirements. The Air Force is the lead agency and will review and approve all documentation prior to submission to state agencies. All negotiations, meetings, sitewalks, and/or teleconferences involving regulatory agencies require prior Air Force approval and appropriate Air Force personnel attendance. The Air Force belief that the technical approach is viable is not a warranty that the approach will satisfy environmental regulators. If the regulators refuse to approve a proposed technical approach, even if put forth and advocated for by the Air Force, it is the contractor's responsibility to develop an alternative approach that can obtain regulator approval. | |
| 79 | If land use controls/restrictions are required to achieve performance objectives, will the Air Force agree to the establishment of these restrictions if they are consistent with the future site use? | The offeror shall submit an approach to achieve SC or to move as close to SC as possible during the POP without expending large sums for contingencies. If the Offeror does not propose SC, the Offeror shall provide a business case analysis for why SC is either not technically feasible or not cost effective for those sites not proposed to achieve SC. Offerors must carefully review the definitions provided in SOO Enclosure 5 when selecting performance objectives for each site. | |
| 80 | Is it correct that the PBR contractor is not responsible for any new contamination that is released on site or off site by the Air Force or others after the contract start date? | Refer to Section 8.1.1 of the SOO. | |
| 81 | Will the Air Force allow the Contractor to negotiate with appropriate regulatory agency(s) to gain approval of a revised approach? | Air Force is the lead agency, the responsible party, and the client. Air Force approval is required in advance of any negotiations, meetings, site walks, or teleconferences with state agencies. Appropriate Air Force personnel must be in attendance for all negotiations, meetings, site walks, and/or teleconferences with state agencies. | |
| 82 | Will the Air Force allow the Contractor to communicate with appropriate regulatory agency(s) during the proposal preparation period? | Potential offerors attending the site visit had an opportunity to discuss this requirement with regulators. However, yes, offerors may correspond with regulators during the proposal period. Any discussions between offerors and regulators will not be binding nor have any impact on the minimum objectives or other requirements for this PBR. Offerors are not authorized to negotiate with regulatory bodies at any time prior to or after contractor award. | |
| 83 | [FedBizOpps] The pre-solicitation draft RFP notice states the following: |
Pending Acquisition Strategy: A determination has not been made concerning whether or not this acquisition will be solicited under full and open competition or as a small business set-aside. This determination will be made prior to release of the Final Solicitation.
Can AFCEC provide a determination regarding the acquisition strategy as soon as possible and before the final RFP is issued? Delaying this determination directly impacts offerors’ ability to adequately plan and develop teaming arrangements to pursue the solicitation. Furthermore, delaying such decision until the final RFP is issued severely limits offerors’ ability to respond, particularly in light of the anticipated short turn-around time for submittal of a proposal.
| If AFCEC determines to pursue a small business strategy, the required construction bonding ($76.5M to $91.8M based on ROM) may limit the small business pool that could participate. | Approval has been obtained regarding the acquisition strategy for this requirement. VAFB PBR will be issued under full and open competition. | ||
| 84 | Given that the government has not yet confirmed either the acquisition strategy or that a procurement action will be issued, it is not feasible let alone prudent to finalize a strategy for teaming, technical approach, and price estimating until the Final RFP is issued. Recent abrupt changes to the acquisition strategies as well as cancellation of other AFCEC PBR solicitations emphasizes this point and provides a significant challenge to the contracting community as to how much to invest highly skilled and critical resources in a solicitation evaluation and when. Given the enormous size and complexity of the anticipated solicitation as implied in the draft SOO as well as the expected breadth of proposal requirements for IMS, MPS, and sub-CLIN deliverables, we recommend at least 120 days be provided for proposal preparation and submittal after the date of issue of the final RFP. Providing adequate response time will benefit the government by enuring increased quality and number of responses to the RFP. | The Air Force will provide a minim of 30 days from Final RFP release for proposal preparation. It is the Air Force's intent to allow 45 days from final RFP release for proposal preparation. Industry has been aware of this requirement since August 2012. The Air Force has provided as much information as possible throughout the preliminary acquisition process. The Air Force will continue to provide updates under the pre-solicitation notice until such time as the Final RFP is released. | |
| 85 | [SF 33, Block 12] Block 12 of the SF33 indicates that the proposal acceptance period is 120 calendar days from receipt. However, paragraph 3.5(a) of Section L-III (Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation) states that the Offeror’s shall include a statement that the proposal is valid for 180 days from the date of submission in Block 9 of the SF33 of the solicitation. These requirements appear to conflict. | Section L-III shall be corrected to reflect proposal validation of 120 calendar days from receipt. | |
| 86 | [RFP, Contract Clauses, Page 60 of 72] FAR 52.237-11, ACCEPTING AND DISPENSING OF $1 COIN (SEP 2008), is incorporated by reference. Is this clause relevant to the contract? | This clause will be removed for the Final RFP. | |
| 87 | [SOO Paragraph 3.0, GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION, EQUIPMENT, AND PROPERTY (GFI, GFE, GFP)] Can AFCEC or VAFB provide a copy of the most current ERPIMS database for Vandenberg AFB sites to be addressed under the PBR? | The ERPIMS information has been provided on the Google site under the ERPIMS folder. | |
| 88 | For earlier RFP efforts AFCEC has been able to supply a GIS supported database containing site locations, monitoring well locations, groundwater and soil analytical results, depths to water, and related surface features. Does this information exist for Vandenberg AFB? If so, can AFCEC provide the most current GIS in native format for offerors to use in developing their proposals? | All information available is included in the ERPIMS folder on the Google site. | |
| 89 | [SOO Table 1] Table 1 of the SOO states that one of the Minimum Performance Objectives for all sites is to “Provide support (supplying documents to independent reviewers and participation in meetings/interviews) for Five-Year Reviews required for all site(s) identified in this contract for the duration of the contract. Correct any remedy or site deficiencies noted in Five-Year Reviews. VAFB plans to consolidate the Five-Year Reviews. A review will be completed in FY13, then another in FY17, then one every five years thereafter.” Will a draft of, or information pertinent to, the 2013 5-year review be provided for review prior to the proposal due date so that the bidders can review the deficiencies in the 2013 5-year review? | RODs prepared and approved to-date have been uploaded to the Google site, and reflect relatively minimal requirements. Additionally, Draft RODs are provided when a final is not yet available. A Draft version of the 2013 5-Year Review will not be available during the proposal preparation period. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .