QA_Spreadsheet__2_-_VAFB_PBR__Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 53 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
Q A Spreadsheet 2-VAFB PBR Final
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
| Question | Government Response | ||
| 1 | The subject solicitation clearly discusses the need for Performance and Payment Bonds however it is silent with regard to any Bid Bond requirement except that on page L- 1 of 6, incorporated by reference, is the DFARS clause 252-228-7004 BONDS AND OTHER SECURITY )(DEC 1991) with inserts for the fill-ins in the clause. The clause states that the "Offerors shall furnish a bid guarantee in the amount of $______ with their bids." In light of the absence of any other reference to a bid guarantee in the solicitation, would you advise if it is the intent that a bid guarantee be provided. | ||
| Bid guarantee is not required. Clause will be altered with a bid guarantee showing N/A. | |||
| 2 | What is purpose of the Technical Risk Submission listed as the fourth item in Volume II outline as presented in Table 2.2, Proposal Organization, of RFP Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors? This does not represent an evaluated Subfactor. The narrative presented in the referenced Section 4.5 appears to indicate that the technical risk should be discussed in Subfactors 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4. If the Technical Risk Submission is a required part of Volume II, what would the offeror present therein that wouldn’t be repetitive of information already captured in the Subfactors identified in Section 4.5? | Section L Table 2.2 and section L 4.5 have been updated to reflect revised technical risk submission. | |
| 3 | Section 4.5 of Section L discusses Technical Risk applicable to Subfactors 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4. Is it correct to conclude that these are risk elements that AFCEC would like presented under the referenced Subfactors? If so, given the page limit restrictions and the limitations on cross-referencing between Subfactors, is it acceptable to provide summary information relevant to the discussion of risk within a Subfactor if the detail of the summary information is presented within another Subfactor? For example, if site-specific information regarding technical approach were presented in Subfactor 1.1, would it be acceptable to provide only a brief synopsis of the site specific information (background, technical approach) in Subfactor 1.2 when discussing the Plan B, Contingency Approach to avoid repeating the same information at a detailed level? | Section L Table 2.2 and section L 4.5 have been updated to reflect revised technical risk submission. | |
| 4 | Section 4.8, Sub-Factor 1.2 - Plan B, Contingency Approach, of Section L states that “all risks associated with the project and proposed technical approach, including potential system failures, and outline strategies for elimination or mitigation of the risks and/or contingencies to address the risks. (e.g., Plan B).” In certain cases, such as OES sites, the potential for system failures that would result in remedy failure are de minimis, and are adequately addressed by contingency approaches to adjust Plan A, making a Plan B approach unnecessary. Is it acceptable to omit discussion of a Plan B approach in such cases, which will provide for more cost-effective approaches and eliminate unnecessary pricing components? | Each subfactor requires the submission outline under Factor 1 technical as well as technical risk IAW para 4.5. | |
| 5 | On 1 Apr 13, AFCEC posted Amendment 2 to the FBO site for Solicitation Number: FA8903-12-R-0033. This amendment included revisions to the SOO, Section L, and Section L-6 as well as responses to additional questions regarding the RFP. A review of the posted question responses elicit the following questions: | ||
| Response to Question 18 states “The transition table referred to in Section 8.1.2 is VAFB Existing PBC Contract Transition Plan for Key Remaining Tasks on Shaw Environmental Sac ERS Contract W91238-06-D-0017, Task Order CQ01. This document has been uploaded to the Google Site and SOO Enclosure 2, Key Documents, will be updated to reflect this addition.” The revised transition table indicates the following revisions from Section 8.1 of the SOO dated 20 Feb 13: | Please note that the Transition of Work as presented in Section 8.1.2 of the SOO (dated 20 February 2013) is consistent between the Draft RFP dated 8 December and the Final RFP dated 8 March 2013. The more detailed table outlining the transition plan for the remaining tasks on the existing PBC (W91238-06-D-0017, TO CQ01) was provided in response to Question 18. A revised detailed table will be provided to account for current schedule adjustments is in keeping with the general tables in both the Draft and Final RFPs as follows: |
- Sep 2013 - Field work for main projects scheduled to end
- Mar 2014 - Field work associated with BGMP and RAO sampling to end associated with a Bridge Contract
- Dec 2014 - Projected end of deliverables associated with the Bridge Contract
- Sep 2013 - Projected completion of FF, PP, ROD and RIP on the existing PBC
| 5 | 1. Transition of ST001 (Shaw) has been moved from September 2013 to December 2014, a schedule slip of 15 months. Furthermore, the transition table references a petition for groundwater closure and an ORC system that will operate through 2014 under a proposed bridge contract. | Transition has not been moved, and there is not a schedule slip of 15 months. The bridge contract will require monitoring or sampling at the site through March 2014; therefore, the PBR contractor will assume sampling responsibilities beyond March 2014 IAW the proposed objective for the site. A "Low Threat Closure Request" is in-process; however low levels of chlorinated solvents and breakdown products in monitoring wells BXS-MW-18 and -24 are present and appear to be unrelated to Site 1. Therefore, agreements with the RWQCB are that these wells will continue to be monitored on an annual basis during the fall sampling events (ref email to RWQCB dated 15 April 2013 as posted to the Google site). |
| 5 | 2. Transition of Site WP005 (Shaw) will now follow partial completion of soil IRA, with regulatory approval of Final Soil Closure Petition Soil Removal at SLC-3E (23-Oct-12) and regulatory acceptance of delineation of shallow soil contamination at SLC-3W (17-Sep-12). | The detailed transition table is intended to show the transition stage between the current and PBR contract tasks. The existing site goal under the current contract (W91238-06-D-0017, TO CQ01) is completion of a soil IRA in at SCL-3E and delineate of the lateral and vertical extent of shallow contaminated soil at SCL-3W. These tasks have both been completed. |
| 5 | 3. Transition of WP008 (Shaw) has been moved from September 2013 to December 2014, a schedule slip of 15 months. Furthermore, the transition table references operation of ISB Treatment Systems - recirculation system in 2 source areas and 3 mid or distal plume barriers which will operate through 2014 under a proposed bridge contract. | Transition has not been moved, and there is not a schedule slip of 15 months. The bridge contract will require system refinements along with monitoring and sampling at the site through March 2014; therefore, the PBR contractor will assume monitoring and sampling responsibilities beyond March 2014 IAW the proposed objective for the site. |
| 5 | 4. Transition of WP013 (Shaw) has been moved from September 2013 to December 2014, a schedule slip of 15 months. Furthermore, the transition table references operation of ISB Treatment System (recirculation system at 1 mid-plume barrier and EHC PRB in other mid-plume barrier) plus scaled down version SVE system at Channel C which will operate through 2014 under a proposed bridge contract. | Transition has not been moved, and there is not a schedule slip of 15 months. The bridge contract will require system refinements along with monitoring and sampling at the site through March 2014; therefore, the PBR contractor will assume monitoring and sampling responsibilities beyond March 2014 IAW the proposed objective for the site. |
| 5 | 5. Transition of SD019 (Shaw) has been moved from September 2013 to December 2014, a schedule slip of 15 months. Furthermore, the transition table references operation of ISB Treatment System - direct push injections which will operate through 2014 under a proposed bridge contract. | Transition has not been moved, and there is not a schedule slip of 15 months. The bridge contract will require system refinements along with monitoring and sampling at the site through March 2014; therefore, the PBR contractor will assume monitoring and sampling responsibilities beyond March 2014 IAW the proposed objective for the site. |
| 5 | 6. Transition of SD024 (Shaw) will now follow completion of a Final FS. Furthermore, the transition table references operation of ISB Treatment System - direct push injections at several locations throughout the site which will operate through 2014 under a proposed bridge contract. | Correct the end state of the existing contract (W91238-06-D-0017, TO CQ01) is installation of several IRAs and completion of an FS. The bridge contract will require system refinements along with monitoring and sampling at the site through March 2014; therefore, the PBR contractor will assume monitoring and sampling responsibilities beyond March 2014 IAW the proposed objective for the site. |
| 5 | 7. Transition of SD025 (Shaw) has been moved from September 2013 to March 2014, a schedule slip of 6 months. Furthermore, the transition table references operation of ISB Treatment System - recirculation system in 1 distal plume area and if deemed necessary add a mid-plume area which will operate through 2014 under a proposed bridge contract, as well as System 2 - ISB - install and achieve performance goals - if deemed necessary by the State. | Transition of the field activities has slipped 6 months to coincide with the end of the field activities associated with a forthcoming bridge contract. Both the FS and PP describe two groundwater recirculation systems one at Site 40 and the other at Site 39 portions of the site. The State and AF have agreed to use a phased approach to install the systems. The recirculation system has been installed at Site 40. Trend evaluations during the 5-year review process are going to determine if the Site 39 portion of the groundwater treatment system will be necessary in the future or not. |
| 5 | 8. Transition of SD032 (Shaw) has been moved from September 2013 to December 2014, a schedule slip of 15 months. Furthermore, the transition table references operation of ISB Treatment System - recirculation system in 1 mid-plume area and 1 distal plume area which will operate through 2014 under a proposed bridge contract. | Transition has not been moved, and there is not a schedule slip of 15 months. The bridge contract will require system refinements along with monitoring and sampling at the site through March 2014; therefore, the PBR contractor will assume monitoring and sampling responsibilities beyond March 2014 IAW the proposed objective for the site. |
| 5 | 9. Transition of SS050 (Shaw) has been moved from September 2013 to December 2014, a schedule slip of 15 months. Furthermore, the transition table references operation of ISB Treatment System - recirculation system in 3 large areas which will operate through 2014 under a proposed bridge contract. | Transition has not been moved, and there is not a schedule slip of 15 months. The bridge contract will require system refinements along with monitoring and sampling at the site through March 2014; therefore, the PBR contractor will assume monitoring and sampling responsibilities beyond March 2014 IAW the proposed objective for the site. |
| 5 | 10. Transition of ST060 (Shaw) has been moved from September 2013 to March 2013 with a revised status of “Closure” with submission and approval of Groundwater Closure Petition. The previous site status was FS/PP/ROD/RIP. | The goal for the existing contract (W91238-06-D-0017, TO CQ01) is Response Complete (RC). The Minimum Performance Objective (MPO) for ST060 identified in the Table 1 of the SOO is Optimized Exit Strategy (OES). A "Low Threat Closure Request" is in-process and was originally anticipated to be accelerated to be completed by March 2013. There have been some minor delays and the projected revised date for the LTC is the end of June. The previous site status was never FS/PP/ROP/RIP. |
| 5 | 11. Transition of AB139 (Shaw) now occurs with a revised status of “IRA” - the previous site status was FS/PP/ROD/RIP. | The goal for the existing contract (W91238-06-D-0017, TO CQ01) is completion of a soil removal IRA. Whereas the MPO for AB139 identified in the Table 1 of the SOO is to "Achieve Response Complete (RC) within two (2) years." The previous site status was never FS/PP/ROP/RIP. |
| 5 | 12. Transition of DC142 (Shaw) has been moved from September 2013 to December 2014, a schedule slip of 15 months. Furthermore, the transition table references operation of an ISB Treatment System - direct push injections which will operate through 2014 under a proposed bridge contract. | Transition has not been moved, and there is not a schedule slip of 15 months. The bridge contract will require system refinements along with monitoring and sampling at the site through March 2014; therefore, the PBR contractor will assume monitoring and sampling responsibilities beyond March 2014 IAW the proposed objective for the site. |
| 5 | 13. The transition table indicates that, for multiple sites (previously W91238-06-D-0017-CQ01 (Shaw)), BGMP and RAO sampling and reporting will continue under pre-negotiated and future bridge contracts through December 2014. | The bridge contract will require system refinements along with monitoring and sampling at the site through March 2014; therefore, the PBR contractor will assume monitoring and sampling responsibilities beyond March 2014 IAW the proposed objective for the site. The December 2014 date pertains to completion of the deliverables associated with these tasks on the bridge contract. |
| 6 | We respectfully recommend a 45-day extension of the proposal due date (to 6 Jun 13) so that the revisions can be adequately evaluated and the most appropriate and competitive approach presented in our proposal. | An extension of 15 days beyond the original due date has already been issued. Another 15 day extension to the proposal due date is included with Amendment 04 to 20 May 2013. A total 30-day extension has been provided. |
| 7 | Additionally, it is unclear when / how / if the “proposed bridge contract” will be advertised, awarded and executed. Please provide additional information regarding the proposed bridge contract, to include the planned scope of work so that impacts to the PBR can be appropriately addressed. | Additional information has been provided concerning the forthcoming bridge contract. The transition information provided in conjunction with the minimum performance objectives (MPOs) set forth in the Statement of Objective (SOO)for each site should provide the PBR Offerors sufficient information to determine an appropriate objective, technical approach, and transition timeframe. Proposals shall address the requirements of the SOO and Request for Porposal (RFP). |
| 8 | For site ST001, since the existing contractor proposes to obtain approval of the groundwater closure petition in June 2013 and operate the ORC treatment system through December 2014, will the SOO requirements for this site be revised or will it be removed from the SOO? If groundwater closure is obtained in 2013, it is unclear why the ORC treatment system will continue to operate for another 18 months; please clarify. Should the Scheduled Submittal and/or Approval Date for Operating the ORC Treatment System be 30-December-13? | Please note that the "ORC treatment system" at this site is a passive system, not an active system that involved ORC being added to the backfill of the excavation. Monitoring of the site will continue until we reach agreements with the RWQCB that monitoring can stop. A "Low Threat Closure Request" is in-process; however low levels of chlorinated solvents and breakdown products in monitoring wells BXS-MW-18 and -24 are present and appear to be unrelated to Site 1. Therefore, agreements with the RWQCB are that these wells will continue to be monitored on an annual basis during the fall sampling events (ref email to RWQCB dated 15 April 2013 as posted to the Google site). |
| 9 | For site ST060, what type of closure is sought under “Submit and Obtain Regulatory Approval of Groundwater Closure Petition?” Closure with ICs or complete site closeout (SC)? | The closure request for ST060 is in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board "Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure" effective August 17, 2012. The Air Force is currently in negotiations with the RWQCB. Currently, it is anticipated that closure of this site will include ICs; therefore, the end-state to be achieved will be RC. |
| 10 | For site DC142, since the existing contractor proposes to obtain ROD approval and perform the ROD remedial action, when can AFCEC provide a copy of the proposed ROD and remedial action? | A Draft ROD for this site is not complete. The Final PP, dated January 2013, will be added to the Google site. The update to the Key Documents List, SOO Enclosure 2, and organization of the Google site is pending. An amendment to the RFP will be issued on FedBizOpps once these items are updated. |
| 11 | In response to question 21, AFCEC indicated that documents listed on the Key Documents List would be uploaded to the Google.docs site as soon as possible, but NLT 1 Apr 13. On 4 Apr 13 a substantial quantity of documents were noted - a review of the Google.docs site indicates that over 1,300 documents have been placed in new directories, but as yet an updated Key Documents List has not been presented. When will AFCEC provide this update? Additionally, the current Key Documents List provided appears to be too large to be downloaded or opened on the Google.docs site. | The update to the Key Documents List, SOO Enclosure 2, and organization of the Google site is pending. An amendment to the RFP will be issued on FedBizOpps once these items are updated. |
| 12 | We respectfully recommend a 45-day extension of the proposal due date (to 6 Jun 13) so that the revisions can be adequately evaluated and the most appropriate and competitive approach presented in our proposal. | An extension of 15 days beyond the original due date has already been issued. Another 15 day extension to the proposal due date is included with Amendment 04 to 20 May 2013. A total 30-day extension has been provided. |
| 13 | We recommend an adequate extension of time (45 calendar days) for submittal of proposals . | An extension of 15 days beyond the original due date has already been issued. Another 15 day extension to the proposal due date is included with Amendment 04 to 20 May 2013. A total 30-day extension has been provided. |
| 14 | Are offerors required to submit Attachments for the Model Contract in Volume I as part of this proposal, or will those be required only after award? | Refer to RFP Section L Table 2.2 Volume I 3.10.2, 3.0 Volume I-Contract Documentation 3.1(n) and 3.10.2. |
| 15 | Will the government please furnish a non-protected PDF of the RFP so offerors can electronically edit the SF33, Reps and Certs, and other portions of the RFP required for proposal submission? | The Government contract writing system does not allow for a non-protected version; the offeror will need to manually fill out the required information or submit via ORCA per the instructions in Section L. |
| 16 | As part of the submittal we would be allowed to split Volume II into two separate physical binders as long as we clearly indicate both binders comprise Volume II, and as long as we still adhere to the overall page limits associated with Volume II? | Yes, as long as you adhere to the instructions in section L and appropriately label the binders with the pertinent Volume information. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .