Additional_Site_Visit_QAs_26_Feb_13.doc

Additional Site Visit Q&As 26 February 2013

1. As indicated in Responses to Questions 16, 17, & 40, various contractors continue to complete work and documents that will be under NMED review upon contract award.

Can AFCEC provide the submittal date or anticipated submittal date for each document prepared under a separate contract from the PBC?

Government Response: All pertinent documents will be uploaded by the final RFP release. Recognize that a significant number of sites included in this PBR are in the investigation stage and available data may be limited. However, the pertinent information is expected to provide enough site specific data in order for the bidding contractors to accurately propose on a FFP requirement within the stated period of performance. All draft reports and existing site data for work that is currently in progress on sites that are part of NM/AZ PBR will be posted to the Google document server link below; https://sites.google.com/a/afcecpbrshare.org/nm-az-group-fy13-pbr/ Please confirm that NTP for such sites will be issued after NMED review of such documents, as the PBC contractor will not have control over this portion of the schedule.

· For example, the RFA Report for Site SS067 will not be issued to NMED for review until September 2013. The NMED will have at least 6 months to review the document before the PBC Contractor commences work on the site, leaving less than 1.5 years to achieve SC. A Statement of Basis requires more than one year to complete in NM given the two public comment periods required, such that achieving SC at Site SS067, as an example, within 2 years of contract award may not be possible.

· If NTP can be based upon receipt of comments from NMED on documents submitted under a different contract, we recommend adding the anticipated NTP to the Summary table requirements to clarify and demonstrate that Minimum Performance Objectives have been met.

Government Response: NTP is acknowledged upon award of the original contract or subsequent modifications to exercise PBR options.

2. In Response to Question 91, the AF recognizes that it has extremely limited control over NMED review times.

Since NMED is responsible for amendment of installation permits, is removal of a site on the RCRA permit by the NMED required to achieve SC?

Government Response: This is accurate; removal of a site on the RCRA permit by NMED is required to achieve SC.

3. Based on the recently posted information for site SS-59 (T-38 Summary 2004-2012), the remaining contamination east and south of the free product removal trench is significant. Would the Air Force consider a technical approach that would include excavation to remove the bulk of the contamination provided a viable access alternative were provided for any mission-critical facilities during the remediation effort? Could any mission-critical facilities located in this area be identified by Air Force and provided to contractors?

Government Response: The importance is to not interfere with "mission critical" activities at the Base. As indicated in Sections L and M, the Air Force will find a proposed approach acceptable if it is technically valid, meets the proposed performance objective while accelerating restoration toward site closure, includes consideration of contingencies and risk mitigation strategies, and would not result in adverse impact to mission-critical functions at the installation.

4. Would an ID/IQ Contract with multiple task orders at a single installation be considered a project?

Government Response: ID/IQ TOs are considered as projects and should be selected that best match the scope of this requirement.

5. It is our understanding that Sites SD033, SD027 and SS039 have an approved Work Plan. Please post this Work Plan and identify what portions of this Work Plan will be completed outside the PBC and what the deliverable for these efforts will be and when this deliverable will be submitted to NMED.

Government Response: All pertinent documents will be uploaded by the final RFP release. Recognize that a significant number of sites included in this PBR are in the investigation stage and available data may be limited. However, the pertinent information is expected to provide enough site specific data in order for the bidding contractors to accurately propose on a FFP requirement within the stated period of performance. All draft reports and existing site data for work that is currently in progress on sites that are part of NM/AZ PBR will be posted to the Google document server link below: https://sites.google.com/a/afcecpbrshare.org/nm-az-group-fy13-pbr/

6. Will LF029 need to be managed as a potential CWM area? If the M-125’s are considered CWM by the Holloman AFB Safety Office, will AFCAC coordinate, schedule and provide the Government Technical Escort Unit (TEU) resources required to perform the work at LF029? Without TEU support, work cannot be performed at a CWM site (i.e., LF029).

Government Response: Yes, LF029 will need to be managed as a potential CWM area.

7. Why is the Site SS039 groundwater only? Please define SC requirements for this site.

Government Response: Refer to the Acronyms and Definitions enclosure.

8. Based upon Response to Question 106, please confirm that nitrate at Site WP026 is administratively managed under Site ST105?

Government Response: This is confirmed; the nitrate at Site WP026 is administratively managed under Site ST105.

9. Response to Question 107 does not address the submitted question in full. Please clarify. Specifically, is the approved Monitoring Well installation at ST105 required to be completed under the PBC?

Government Response: No, the monitoring well installation at ST105 will be performed under a separate TO and will be concluded by December 2013.

10. We request that all GIS files associated with the nitrate plume at Kirtland AFB be released.

Government Response: No, the GIS files are not available. That data can be viewed in the latest GW monitoring report dated 2011.

11. Nitrate Plume 1 at Kirtland AFB appears to be associated with the City Sanitary Sewer line break. What is the Air Force's responsibility regarding Plume 1? Is the PBC contractor responsible to abate Plume 1 or just monitor?

Government Response: The Air Force's responsibility regarding Plume 1 is to continue to perform LTM. The PBC Contractor will be responsible for the monitoring of Plume 1.

General Questions:

12. When is the Final RFP coming out?

Government Response: The anticipated Final RFP release date is 12 March 2013.

13. Greatly appreciate if you can provide an estimated date for the proposal due date?

Government Response: Refer to the Final RFP of this Solicitation.

14. Please provide the following documents:

Holloman AFB, Request for Documentation:

1. Holloman AFB RCRA Permit Parts II, III, IV, V and Appendices.

2. Holloman AFB building location map.

3. Holloman AFB 1993 RFI Report authored by Woodward Clyde

4. Holloman AFB SS-67 (Building 903 – 909 Sandblast Residues) Corrective Measures/Action Completion Report or equivalent document if named differently.

5. HAFB Site SS018 – Chromic Acid Spill Site: Author unknown, September 1984 – Phase II Stage 1 Investigation Report (Several soil borings and 1 MW installation); and

6. HAFB Site SS018 – Chromic Acid Spill Site: Author unknown, [2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012], Titles unknown, [Investigation Report and Results on nature and extent of contamination at SS018].

7. HAFB SS069: Please provide the following documents:

a. 1988 RFA Report (title and author unknown)

b. Report documenting 2007 SI activities (title, data, author unknown)

c. Report documenting 2008 Investigation (title, author unknown, submittal date ~2012)

8. HAFB: 1996 Decision Document for BX Service Station/SS-17

9. HAFB site SS-17: 1994(?) NMED DD Rejection

10. HAFB: 06/01/2008: Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis for Approval of NFA for 8 SWMUs and AOCs (no cover letter)

11. HAFB: 06/20/2008: Formal Request for a Class 3 Permit Modification (legal notice from newspapaer enclosed)

12. HAFB 10/14/2011: NOD; Class 3 Permit Modification Request and Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis for Approval of NFA for 8 SWMUs

13. HAFB: 10/31/2011: NOD: Class 3 Permit Modification Request and Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis for Approval of NFA for 10 SWMUs

14. HAFB: 12/29/2011 NOD; November 28, 2011 Response to the NOD for the Class 3 Permit Modification Request and Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis for Approval of NFA for 7 SWMUs and AOC, June 2008

15. HAFB: 01/12/2012 NOD: December 14, 2011 NOD Response for the Class 3 Permit Modification Request and Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis for Approval of NFA for 10 SWMUs and AOC, July 2008

16. HAFB: 01/26/2012: Class 3 Permit Modification

17. HAFB 03/20/2012 January 26, 2012: Response to the December 29, 2011 NOD for Class 3 Permit Modification Request and Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis for Approval of NFA for 7 SWMUs and AOCs, November 2011

18. HAFB 07/16/2012 Well Abandonment Plan for Monitoring Wells at SWMUs 105, 108, 115, 116, 130, AOC N & AOC P

19. HAFB 08/10/2012: Submittal; Rejection Monitoring Well Abandonment Plans, July 16, 2012

20. HAFB Sites DP030/SD033: Semiannual groundwater monitoring reports for DP30/SD33 (SWMU 113B) at Holloman AFB from after May 2008 to the most recent

21. HAFB Site FF029: The After Action Report identified in Bay West Removal Action Work Plan dated January 2009, and any NMED response to this report or any other correspondence related to LF-29 following the removal action; also please provide 2006 LTM Report (NMED LTR Response is AR-1351).

22. HAFB Site SS013 - please provide the following documents:

a. 1983 Phase I IRP Records Search by CH2M Hill

b. 1999 Rejection Letter from NMED for the petition to close Site SS-13.

c. ACM Report submitted in March 2012, and Request for CAC

23. HAFB NMED comments and responses to the Basewide Background Study for HAFB submitted in 2008, if available

24. HAFB Site SD027: The site visit briefing states, "In 2010 and 2011 additional investigation was performed at SD-027." Please provide the reports and/or data related to these investigations. Additionally, the briefing states "LTM is being conducted at the site." Please provide the reports and or data related to the LTM.

25. HAFB Site RW042: Admin Record documents available to date indicate that an Accelerated Corrective Measures Report has been prepared for Site RW042 at HAFB. Please provide the ACM Report as well as any review and response comments from NMED. Site Visit Briefing for Site RW042 at HAFB states that "NFA status has been requested for the site and NMED has had the report and NFA status for the site since September 2012". Please provide the NFA Request that was filed for the site as well as any relevant responses to this request from NMED

26. HAFB Sites OT037 and OT038: The most recent documents for HAFB Sites OT-37 and OT-38 on the Administrative Record google site appear to be from 1998. Please provide recent documents for the two sites. Specifically, two rounds of additional investigation since 2008 are referenced in the site visit presentation for Site OT-37 – please provide the work plans, results, reports, and associated NMED comments for these investigations. For Site OT-38, please provide the work plan, results, reports, and associated NMED comments for the 2008 characterization work referenced in the site visit presentation.

27. HAFB Site SS039: Please provide the work plan, results, reports, and associated NMED comments for the additional characterization work conducted in 2010, as well as the last 5 years of LTM results and reports.

28. HAFB Site OD20K: There does not appear to be any documentation associated with this site on the AFCEC google web site. Please provide any documents available for this site.

29. HAFB Site OT014: Please provide the work plan and results from the additional characterization conducted in 2009, as well as the CAC Status Request

30. HAFB Site OT032: Please provide the results from the additional characterization conducted in 2008, and the Final ACM Report issued to NMED in September 2012

Government Response: Refer to Question # 5 of this document.

Questions Holloman AFB:

15. The 2007 HAFB Environmental Restoration Program Site Summaries document states that the COC for SS-65 and SS-67 is Benzene, although the 2012 Site Presentation does not mention Benzene. Is or was Benzene a COC for these sites?

Government Response: The analytical results from the soil and groundwater samples collected at site SS-65 during this investigation did not contain any VOCs, SVOCs, TPH or PCBs in excess of current action levels. Only As and Fe exceeded background. Groundwater only contained estimated concentrations of VOCs and SVOCs. Groundwater contained Fe, Mn and Th above action levels. Site SS-67, soil and groundwater samples were collected at the site in 2007. Analytical results from investigations did not identify VOCs, SVOCs or TPH in soil at the site. Metals, As and Th, were detected in soils above background levels. Grit material contained Sb, As, Co, and Pb above NMED SSLs. Groundwater samples did not contain VOCs, SVOCs or TPH. Metals, Fe and Mn, exceed NMED background levels. The grit was removed from the site and CAC status has been requested.

16. At SS-65, which report was delayed for submittal due to delays in the basewide background study?

Government Response: The CACR.

17. Holloman AFB: Is the MPO Site Closure in 5 years at SS-65 due to the lack of a basewide background study or is there another reason for the time frame?

Government Response: 5 years was considered to be the most reasonable timeframe to allow the successful offeror to achieve the MPO for SS065.

18. For site SS-67, has all of the sand blast grit been removed? If not, what is the anticipated date for removal and is NTP contingent on this removal?

Government Response: Yes, the sand blast grit has been removed from the site.

19. For the T-38 Test Cell, what objective will the 2013 Voluntary Corrective Measures contract achieve? Is NTP contingent upon any factors within the Voluntary Corrective Measures contract work?

Government Response: Refer to the Final SOO.

Cannon AFB, Request for Documentation:

1. CAFB (SWMU 82 – Landfill No. 2): Author unknown, 1985, Phase II Stage 1 Investigation Report;

2. CAFB (SWMU 82 – Landfill No. 2): Woodward Clyde, 1993, RFI Report [Title Unknown];

3. CAFB (SWMU 82 – Landfill No. 2): URS, 2007, RFI Report [Title Unknown]; and

4. CAFB (SWMU 82 – Landfill No. 2): Author and date unknown, AR 1372 [CAFB recommendation for CAC w/controls to understand the basis of recommendation]

5. Cannon AFB (SWMU 103 – North Playa Lake): Author unknown, 1994, Phase I RCRA FI (RFI) Report [figures/tables/appendices];

6. Cannon AFB (SWMU 103 – North Playa Lake): Author unknown, 1995, Phase II RFI Report [figures/tables/appendices];

7. Cannon AFB (SWMU 103 – North Playa Lake): NMED, date unknown, review and comments on Phase II RFI Report;

8. Cannon AFB (SWMU 103 – North Playa Lake): Author unknown, July 2009, Corrective Measure Study Work Plan [report/figures/appendices];

9. Cannon AFB (SWMU 103 – North Playa Lake): Author and date unknown, Phase III RFI Report [Title Unknown] (figures, tables, appendices);

10. Cannon AFB (SWMU 103 – North Playa Lake): NMED, November 2012, review and approval letter of Phase III RFI Report; and

11. Cannon AFB (SWMU 103 – North Playa Lake): Author unknown, 1998, Summary of Risk Evaluations at Playa Lake (Volume I of II).

12. Cannon AFB (SWMU 102 – Wastewater Treatment Effluent Discharge): URS, October 2007, Final RFI Report [Title Unknown]; and

13. Cannon AFB (SWMU 102 – Wastewater Treatment Effluent Discharge): Author unknown, September 2008, Corrective Action Complete Proposal [Title Unknown].

Government Response: Refer to Question # 5 of this document.

Luke AFB, Request for Documentation:

1. TU044: The five most recent reports for this site (listed below) have been submitted to the Air Force and ADEQ, but are not loaded onto the Google Drive:

a. Draft-Final 2011 DATA GAPS REPORT (Versar, October 2012)

b. Draft-Final JANUARY 2012 QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT (Versar, October 2012)

c. Draft-Final April 2012 QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT (Versar, December 2012)

d. Draft-Final July 2012 QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT (Versar, December 2012)

e. Draft-Final October 2012 QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT (Versar, December 2012)

Government Response: Refer to Question # 5 of this document.

Questions Luke AFB:

20. ST018: Who will perform the cost/benefit analysis of continued cap maintenance vs. replacement (successful PBR contractor or other party)?

Government Response: Refer to Section L and Section M of this Solicitation.

21. RW002: Please provide the current status of the 2012 5-year review action item “work with ADEQ to assess appropriateness of current action level” for Gamma Radiation, scheduled for May 2012.

Government Response: Refer to Question # 263 of the Draft RFP Q&A document.

22. According to the 2012 5-year review, “during the first five-year review, ADEQ requested that several wells be added to the LTM program.” Please provide ADEQ comments on Draft Final 2002 5-year review.

Government Response: Refer to Question # 5 of this document.

Questions Kirtland AFB:

23. Sewer line impact on Kirtland AFB sites LF002, WP026, and ST105. Kirtland AFB and the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Authority (ABCWUA) appear to be at an impasse with regard to resolution of the repairs and movement of the City’s sewer line. The records indicate there is a significant leak in the sewer that is a source of nitrate that impacts the groundwater quality. Will Kirtland AFB and the ABCWUA resolve the repair and movement of the sewer issue before the PBC is awarded? To meet the performance goals, will the Contractor be responsible for investigation of the leaks, repairs, and/or line replacement?

Government Response: No, it is not anticipated that Kirtland AFB and the ABCWUA will come to a resolution the repair and movement of the sewer issue before the PBC is awarded. No, the PBR Contractor will not be responsible for investigation of the leaks, repairs, and/or line replacement.

24. Sites LF001, LF002, and LF008. Will the Contractor be responsible for continuing the landfill cover percolation monitoring, including maintenance/replacement of the equipment (lysimeters, etc), during the period of performance?

Government Response: Per the SOO, page 13 of 42, for Sites LF001, LF002, and LF008 it states: O&M and Long Term Management (preventive and corrective maintenance) at these sites will begin in 4th Quarter 2013 (September 2013).

25. Site CG570 EOD Hill at KAFB, please provide the 2009 work plan, results, reports and associated NMED comments. Also, please provide:

· The 2006-2007 data from the eight rounds of initial characterization sampling of the contaminated well completed by DOE

· The first version of Draft Site Investigation Work Plan issued in January 2010

· The second revision of Draft Site Investigation Work Plan issued in June 2010 after NOD received from NMED

· The second NOD issued by NMED in October 2010

· Any documentation available after October 2010 NMED NOD letter regarding if a third version of the Work Plan was issued or whether it was accepted by the NMED

Government Response: Refer to Question # 5 of this document.

26. UST-058 at KAFB, the most recent report includes an Appendix F, In-Situ Remediation Work Plan – please provide NMED approval/comments on Appendix F and any results of work conducted as part of this work plan.

Government Response: Refer to Question # 5 of this document.

27. The majority of the Cannon sites were assigned OES MPOs. Are there mission-critical operational constraints at any of the sites that you expect to prevent advanced milestones from being achieved? If so please identify the constraints that contributed to that determination?

Government Response: The importance is to not interfere with "mission critical" activities at the Base. As indicated in Sections L and M, the Air Force will find a proposed approach acceptable if it is technically valid, meets the proposed performance objective while accelerating restoration toward site closure, includes consideration of contingencies and risk mitigation strategies, and would not result in adverse impact to mission-critical functions at the installation.

28. The Government’s response to Question 11 suggests that each contractor must interpret the requirements New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax for themselves. Since, as per your summary, the effective cost of this tax is generally passed on to the consumer and in this case the Government is the consumer, has the Government established any form of exemption from the NM GRT to avoid using federal funds to pay state taxes? In other states where sales taxes apply the Government has frequently established sales tax exemptions for federal projects.

Government Response: Refer to Question # 11 of the Initial Site Visit Q&As.

29. Will the Air Force consider a site to have achieved SC if the contamination at the site has been remediated to UU/UE standards but the State will not remove the requirement for controls at the site due to ongoing operational concerns (ie. Site is operational POL yard or storm drainage outfall)?

Government Response: Refer to Acronyms and Definitions Enclosure for SC definition.

30. Is a RCRA permit modification to remove a site that has met its RAOs required as the final step of achieving SC or is the NMED’s concurrence that the site has met UU/UE standards and can be closed without controls sufficient to achieve the milestone? If a permit modification is required, will the AF or regulators impose any restrictions on the number or frequency of the permit modifications requested?

Government Response: Refer to Question # 94 of the Draft RFP Q&A.

31. In a case where all practical remediation has been completed but regulated media remains in place and requires a permanent monitoring program as an institutional control, can the site be designated as Response Complete, and the subsequent maintenance of those ICs considered LTM? Examples would include landfills that cannot reasonably removed in their entirety or soil contamination beneath infrastructure that cannot be reasonably removed for the purpose of remediation (major utilities, runways, etc.)

Government Response: Refer to Acronyms and Definitions Enclosure for RC definition.

32. Historically, at the New Mexico bases the Air Force and NMED have preferred that closure requests, permit modifications etc. be submitted in packages containing multiple sites. Will that approach be required under this contract or will the Air Force and NMED review individual site submittals separately? If bundled submittals will be expected please specify the criteria for combined submittals.

Government Response: It is anticipated that the bundled approach to the packaging of closure requests and permit modifications, etc. would continue for this effort. There is no specific criteria for combined submittals.

33. Please provide the 2004 report documenting the preliminary investigation at the Cannon AFB tank sites TU502, TU503, TU 504 and TU505.

Government Response: Refer to Question # 5 of this document.

34. Can AFCEC Please provide the following document?

United States Geologic Survey (USGS). 1995. Investigation of Eight Underground Storage Tank Facilities on Cannon AFB and Melrose Bombing Range, New Mexico, Volume I. Prepared By Frederick E. Gebhardt

Government Response: Refer to Question # 5 of this document.

35. For Cannon Site TU504 (25,000 gallon Hospital UST) can AFCEC provide tank construction details and the specific location of the relative to the hospital building?

Government Response: Refer to Question # 5 of this document.

36. For Cannon Site TU504, will AFCEC allow the any excavation or tank removal activities given that tank likely extends under the existing generators and contamination is likely present under the hospital building?

Government Response: Refer to Question # 27 of this document.

37. For Cannon Site TU504, if excavation is allowed, can the generators be taken out of service and moved and be replaced or will the contractor be required to provide replacement backup power?

Government Response: Refer to Question # 27 of this document.

38. For Kirtland site CG570 (EOD Hill), a background study is required for perchlorate. Is the background study specific to EOD Hill site or is the study’s purpose to define a background concentration that can be applied across the whole base?

Government Response: Refer to Table 1 of the SOO for this Solicitation.

39. During the site walk at Kirtland AFB, Mr. Wayne Bitner indicated that the PBR contractor should expect to be involved in litigation support at Site ST105. Please confirm this statement is correct and present the Air Force’s expectations of the PBR contactor at Site ST105, if correct.

Government Response: Refer to SOO, Section 4.6 - Meeting and Conference Requirements.

40. Section 1.2 of the Draft SOO indicates “The Contractor shall develop an Optimized Exit Strategy (OES) for sites that have an approved DD prior to, or during the POP, but do not achieve SC. …. An OES Plan shall be delivered within one year from Notice to Proceed (NTP) and one of the final milestones shall be an OES Effectiveness Report”

If a site will not achieve SC within the POP and has no decision document currently, when does the OES Plan required? It is our experience that an OES Plan is not required until the decision document is finalized. Please clarify what NTP refers to for the OES Plan.

Government Response: Refer to Question # 20 of this document.