VAFB_Question_and_Answers_Spreadsheet_Final_RFP.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 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
Questions and Answers for Final RFP - Vandenberg PBR
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 | If regulatory approval of Low-Threat closure has been obtained, can site closeout be attained using this process? Will acceptance of Low-Threat UST Case Closure Policy under the RWQCB be acceptable to AFCEC as consistent with obtaining SC as defined by AFCEC in the RFP? Or will AFCEC-approved SC “allowing unrestricted use of the property” require full VOC/SVOC analysis of UST site samples, a HH risk assessment, and removal of all TPH-impacted soil above the acceptable HH risk range? | Site Closeout is when a site meets the criteria of Unrestricted Use/Unrestricted Exposure with no land use controls or institutional controls. If the GIS is used to prohibit construction of wells for potable water then UU/UE has not been achieved for Site Closeout of the tank site since IRP funds are used to maintain the GIS system at the installation and the Air Force requires Five-Year Reviews. |
| 2 | Is a performance model required for sites that have the objective of SC within the POP, and have or will have an approved DD during the POP? | A performance model is required to be provided in the proposal for sites that are not proposed to achieve SC. However, the SOO requires that, during execution of the work, performance models be prepared for all sites that have or will have an approved DD during the POP. |
| 3 | Is a performance model required only for those sites with active remediation (including monitored natural attenuation), either as part of an Optimized Exit Strategy (OES) or as a step toward achieving Response Complete (RC) or Site Closeout (SC) during the POP? | A performance model is required to be provided in the proposal for sites that are not proposed to achieve SC. However, the SOO requires that, during execution of the work, performance models be prepared for all sites that have or will have an approved DD during the POP. |
| 4 | Request that AFCEC consider a 10% retainage on the final sub-CLIN milestones, or at least reduce the retainage to 20% as it has been on previous PBR contracts. To require each final sub-CLIN milestone to be an amount that is 25% of Contractor’s proposed cost for that element of performance is very likely to result in the submittal of higher bids, due to the length of time between contractor performance and payment, which will not aid the acquisition, nor would it be in the Government’s best interest. | The Air Force needs to ensure that sufficient retainage is required of a contractor to ensure the final end-state of a SubCLIN is reached. The percentage increase to 25% was determined appropriate based on comparision with performance-based efforts used by the USACE as well as by past experience. Offerors have an opportunity to structure milestones as they determine appropriate within the confines of the guidance provided in the RFP. |
| 5 | According to the BSA, 1,4-dioxane is an emergent chemical, but it is analyzed for as part of the VOC suite. However, the PBR SOO (p. 28 of 34) states: “The Contractor shall not be responsible for…. Remediation or treatment of emerging contaminants unless otherwise specified.” Is 1,4-Dioxane a “Specified” emergent contaminant and is treatment of 1,4-Dioxane within the scope of this contract? | 1,4-Dioxane is not identified specifically within the SOO or RFP as an emergent contaminant requiring remediation or treatment. However, potential Offerors are advised to develop a proposed approach based on a careful understanding of recent regulatory experience with 1,4-Dioxane at VAFB as presented in documents available from the AFCEC PBR Document Share Site. For existing 1,4-Dioxane remediation or treatment requirements at VAFB sites, please refer to the appropriate Feasibility Studies and Decision Documents approved by regulatory agencies and the Air Force. For sites with no existing Decision Document and for sites where an Offeror may propose modifying or amending an existing Decision Document, please refer to the Federal Facility Site Remediation Agreement for VAFB (AR#122), as well as U.S. EPA and California regulatory policy for remediation or treatment of chemicals. |
| 6 | A review of the Access databases (ERPIMS) for Vandenberg AFB posted to the Google docs site on approximately February 22, 2013 indicates that there are missing records. Check queries show that 486 field samples collected in 2011 and 2012 do not have matching RESULTS records in any of the four Access databases comprising the Vandenberg ERPIMS database snapshot. Will the missing records be provided via updated ERPIMS database snapshots? | All information currently available in ERPIMS has been provided. |
| 7 | Request clarification on the scope of facilities included in TU-606 (Former AOI-606). In the Site Walk conducted on October 12, 2012, the information provided by the Air Force indicated that the TU-606 USTs were associated with eight former Camp Cooke buildings, 8101, 8102, 8104, 8105, 8106, 8108, 8110 (3), and 8111. However the Supplemental Preliminary Assessment Report (Tetra Tech 1995) shows that TU-606 included up to 54 buildings with associated USTs. Please clarify whether the scope of services that the Air Force is requesting is for only those eight buildings identified during the site walk or for all potential UST sites in the area identified in the Supplemental Preliminary Assessment Report. | Tu606 - Camp Cook Buildings (Airmen Dormitories) comprises a large multi-block area bounded by California Street to the northwest, Washington Avenue to the north and Nevada Avenue to the southeast. The Supplemental Preliminary Assessment (PA) Report (Tetra Tech 1995) and the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) were conducting simultaneous investigation at VAFB. The USBR activities closed many of the former USTs located within TU-606 boundaries. USBR field activities and recommendations are documented in their numerous reports included on the google site. An additional reference document on the google site for TU-606 is MWH Final Summary Document for Closed Site 45 Basewide USTs at VAFB dated July 2011 (AR# 3099 or ftp site document #5580). |
| 8 | Section L, Table 2.2 allows 2 pages for each project description found in Subfactor 1.4 and Factor 2, Past Performance Information Sheets; however; Section L, Paragraph 2.3.11.6 still states that each project should be contained on one single-sided sheet. Please verify that Table 2.2 is correct. | Two, single-sided pages are allotted for each project. Section L 2.3.11.6 will be corrected to reflect this. |
| 9 | Section L. 2.3.11.3 was changed to state “Each side of each 11 x 17 inch sheet that displays printed material shall be counted as 2 pages.” However if each side of each 8.5 x 11 inch paper counts as 0.5 pages, and an 11 x 17 inch sheet is equivalent to two 8.5 x 11 inch sheets, each side of each 11 x 17 inch sheet should count as one page. | Section L 2.3.11.3 will be changed to reflect "Each side of each 11X17 inch sheet that displays printed material shall be counted as 1 page. |
| 10 | In Section L, Paragraph 5.5, all requirements for PPQ submission have been deleted. Please provide instructions on how and when PPQs should be submitted to AFCEC. | Section L , Paragraph 5.6 will be revised to include the information concerning PPQ submission as follows: Each Offeror is requested to submit the information shown in the project summaries for each relevant project identified in Subfactor 1.4 – Corporate Experience and IAW Section 5.6, 15 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals. The responsibility to track and ensure the completion/submission of the PPQ rests solely with the Offeror. Offerors shall ensure that the information is submitted directly to the PCO and past performance chair, Capt Rebecca Ban (rebecca.ban@us.af.mil). The PPQ form is included as Attachment L-3 to this solicitation. Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in Offeror disqualification. |
| 11 | Section L, Paragraph 6.5(g) states that the final SubCLIN milestone for each site must be a minimum of 25% of the total SubCLIN cost; however, Attachment L-6 states that the final SubCLIN milestone for each site must be a minimum of 20% of the total SubCLIN cost. Please verify that Attachment L-6 is correct. | Section L, Paragraph 6.5 (g) is correct. Attachment L-6 shows the minimum the Government could retain for this PBR strategy. However, Offerors shall comply with requirements in Section L. |
| 12 | Section B lists Site TU563 as CLIN 005; however, Attachment L-6 lists TU563 as CLIN 033. Please verify that Section B is correct. | Attachment L-6 will be corrected to reflect TU563 as CLIN 0005. |
| 13 | Definitions – there are two definitions of Performance Models. Please indicate which one takes precedence. | Attachment 1E4, SOO Enclosure 4, will be corrected to delete the first performance model definition. The following performance model definition will be the applicable defintion: "A predictive graphic model that describes the expected course of the remediation process (i.e. how conditions are expected to change over time as measured using appropriate performance indicators from the current state until the response objective is achieved). The performance model will depict the concentration that will be achieved by the end of the POP (i.e. minimum target concentration) through implementation of the offerors proposed OES and the time-concentration relationship during the POP as the OES is implemented. A narrative description of the nature of the time-concentration (e.g., straight line, exponential, step function, etc.) should be provided including the technical rationale or logic for the selection of the model (i.e., rationale for the depiction)." |
| 14 | Section L, 2.3.11.3 Page Limitations (a) states that “each side of each 8.5 x 11 inch sheet that displays printed material shall be counted 0.5 pages for page limitation purposes.” Please confirm that the printed page limitation for our proposal’s Technical Approach Sections 4.5, 4.7 and 4.8 (limitation listed as 100 pages on Table 2.2) is actually 200 pages of printed text. | It is correct that 100 pages includes 200 pages of text. Please note all exceptions to this requirement, including 11X17 sheets and corporate experience/past performance. |
| 15 | Section L, Table 2.2 lists the page limitation for 4.10 Technical Subfactor 1.4 – Corporate Experience as 10 pages (per 2.3.11.3, presumably 10 pages with text printed on each side, or 20 pages of printed text for the 5 required project descriptions). Additionally, Section 5.5 Past Performance Information Sheets states “The Offeror shall provide copies of the project summaries under Corporate Experience as a part of the submission for this Factor” and Table 2.2 indicates that Section 5.5 Past Performance Information Sheets may contain up to 10 pages (2 pages per project), or per 2.3.11.3, presumably 20 pages of text for the 5 required project descriptions. However, Section L 2.3.11.6 states “Project summaries submitted for Subfactor 1.4, Corporate Experience, …….shall be submitted on five, single-sided 8.5 x 11 inch pages. Each project must be contained on a single page.” Please specifically indicate how many pages of written text may be included for a single project description. | Corporate Experience and Past Performance must be submitted on single-sided pages. Two pages are allowed for each project. The total allotted for all projects is 10 pages (10 pages of text). Section L 2.3.11.6 will be revised to reflect this correction. |
| 16 | Section L, 2.3.11.3 Page Limitations (c) states that “each side of each 11 x 17 inch sheet that displays printed material shall be counted as 2 pages for page limitation purposes.” Please confirm that one 11 x 17 piece of paper printed on one side is equal to 2, 0.5 “pages” (or one single page) for page count purposes. | See response to question 9. |
| 17 | How should we show numbering for 0.5 pages? | Numbering is not necessarily reflective of how pages will be counted. The Government will physically count each page. Therefore, half pages may follow a normal numbering sequence or any other numbering method deemed appropriate by the Offeror as long as a clear progression of numbering is reflected. |
| 18 | There seems to be some discrepancies between the Section L Table 2.2 Proposal Organization list for Volume One contents and the information in the text under 3.0 VOLUME 1 – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION. Items listed in the text to be included are not listed in the same order as shown on the table. There are duplications as well as additional items listed in the 3.0 VOLUME 1 text that do not seem to have an obvious place to be included according to Table 2.2. Would the following list be an accurate depiction of what you want to see in each tabbed section? Green font indicates additions to the Table 2.2 contents in accordance with 3.0 VOLUME 1 text; blue italics are questions. | The Table is only reflective of titles of major portions of the text included for each Volume. Please see below responses for changes that will be made to the Table and other portions of Section L for clarity. |
| 19 | 3.1 Volume Organization - Please specify what information should be contained in this section. | This section will be removed from the Table since nothing is required of the Offeror under this section. It is merely a listing of how the Volume should be organized. |
| 3.2 Contact Information - Additional information included: Cover Letter, Contact Information | Section L 3.2 will be changed to reflect the following: The Offeror shall identify the point of contact (POC) in a cover letter…" Additionally, the Table will be changed to reflect a title of Contact Information for 3.2 with Cover Letter as the descriptor. | |
| 3.4 Standard Proposal Information - Master Table of Contents, Volume Table of Contents, List of Tables and Figures, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms | This is the information that should be included in the standard proposal section of the Volume; however, it is not necessary to list all of these things in the Table. The Table includes a title of the paragraph under which requirements fall, Volume Number, copies and page limitations. | |
| 3.5 Validity Statement - SF33, DFARS 252.209-79999, Reps and Certs | The reference to DFARS 252.209-79999 will be removed. This requirement is covered under a specific clause in the SF33. Offerors are required to provide the SF33 as a separate document. Information will be added under a new paragraph 3.10 concerning the submission of the Model Contract and applicable Representations and Certifications and Attachments to the Model Contract. Also see Paragraph 2.0, Table 2.2, Paragraph 3.1, 3.5, and 3.9: The following information will be added under paragraph 3.10: (a) The purpose of this section is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. (b) The Offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract (Sections A through J). Signature by the Offeror on the Standard Form (SF) 33 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. The “original” copy shall be clearly marked under separate cover and shall be provided without any punched holes; 3.10.1 Representations and Certifications: (a) The Offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Representations and Certifications, Section K. The Offeror may submit a signed copy from the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) website in lieu of completing the representations and certifications included in the model contract; 3.10.2 Attachments for the Model Contract: The Offeror shall provide a list of the Government Equipment/Property (from SOO Enclosure 3) that it intends to use in execution of this requirement for inclusion in the following Attachment in Section J upon contract award: (a) Attachment 7, Scheduled Government Furnished Property; The following is a list of attachments, including Enclosures, which will be made part of the Vandenberg PBR Contract upon Award: (a) Attachment 1 – Statement of Objectives, (b) Attachment 2 – Website Addresses in Support of PBR SOO, (c) Attachment 3 – Davis Bacon Wage Determination for California (Building, Heavy, and Highway) for Santa Barbara County – most current General Decision Number, (d) Attachment 4 – Key Personnel Qualifications and Parameters, (e) Attachment 5 – Vandenberg Environmental Program Contractor Base Support Letter, (f) Attachment 6 – Requisitioned Government Furnished Property, (g) Attachment 7 – Scheduled Government Furnished Property, (h) Attachment 1E1 – SOO Enclosure 1 – Site List, (i) Attachment 1E2 – SOO Enclosure 2 – Key Documents, (j) Attachment 1E3 – SOO Enclosure 3 – Government Furnished Equipment/Government Furnished Property, (k) Attachment 1E4 – SOO Enclosure 4 – Acronyms and Definitions | |
| 3.7 Proof of Bonding Capability - Total amount for construction efforts, Letters to provide proof of bonding capacity | Again, the Table includes a title of the paragraph under which requirements fall, Volume Number, copies and page limitations. The required content is listed under Paragraph 3.7 of Section L. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .