NM-AZ_PBR_Additional_Questions_and_Answers_19_Mar_2013.doc

NM-AZ PBR Additional Questions – submitted 19, 15 and 13 Mar 2013

Section L

1. Table 2.2, Proposal Organization: For Volume II – Factor1: Technical, would the government consider allowing 4.3, General Instructions to also have unlimited page limit, similar to Standard Proposal Information? We expect to have a short statement for this requirement; however, because it needs to be placed in its own tab, it will be counted as an entire page. We are having significant issues meeting the page limitation for the Technical Risk Submission and Technical Subfactor 1.1 – Technical Approach, so even 1 extra page for those requirements would be greatly appreciated.

Government Response: The page limit for 4.3 General Instructions has been changed to Unlimited.

2. 2.3.4, Price Information: Please provide Schedule B in Word format so that we can comply with the RFP submittal requirements.

Government Response: A copy of Schedule B in Word format is to be provided with the Draft RFP.

Section M

1. M002.B, Subfactor 1.3: Management Approach: Please provide Attachment 4 as referenced for the key personnel qualifications as soon as possible as it affects managerial approach and pricing decisions.

Government Response: Attachment 4 will be provided with the Draft RFP.

Attachments

1. L-2 Milestone Payment Schedule with Price: It is not clear what values should be placed in “Total Contract” vs. “Total at Award” vs. “Total for Options.” In the example, only construction cost for the SubCLINs are being brought forward to “Total at Award” in the

CLIN Amount column. Also, the Preliminary PMP submittal is not being captured in the

Total Contract Amount, Milestone Payment column.

Government Response: The “Total Contract” amount should equal the “Total at Award” (amount being obligated for the first year) plus “Total for Options” (total of remaining years; i.e., subtracting “Total at Award” from “Total Contract” amount). L-2 was provided as an example only; however, the contractor should know that they need to provide the Preliminary PMP milestone costs in both the Milestone Payment column and in the Total Contract Amount. Attachment L-2 will be revised so that the PMP submittals are captured in the Milestone Payment column.

2. L-6 CLIN Structures/MPS/IMS Guidance: The CLIN structure starting on page 5 of 18 in this document is for another PBR program. We request that the government provide a similar table for the NM/AZ PBR as soon as possible. This is a critical element of the RFP as it is guides our scheduling and pricing efforts.

Govt Response: Attachment L-6 has been corrected and the corrected copy will be provided as an attachment to the Draft RFP.

Additional Questions - submitted 15 Mar 2013 Cannon AFB

1. The Group 3 tanks sites under Shaw contract (TU503, TU506, TU508, and TU518) all have working copy RFI reports available as you have posted the response to comments on these reports for each of these 4 sites.

However, the reports for Building 298 TU508 or Building 221 TU503 have not been posted. Without these reports, the posted data packages are useless, we cannot correlate any of the data results with sample locations, depths, pre-excavation, post-excavation, etc. The work plan was generic for all tank sites and cannot be utilized for sample identification either.

Government Response: All available documentation will be posted to the Google Site prior to the Final RFP release.

2. For the URS documents on the 8 Multiple Sites, only data packages have been posted, but no sample logs, or field maps are available. Without these records, the posted data is useless, as it is not possible to determine nature and extent of contamination.

Government Response: The sample logs, field maps, and other pertinent information can be located in the corresponding reports that are on the Google Site.

3. The URS data packages (over 50) for the 8 sites are currently posted as pdf data which cannot be manipulated, but these data are available to URS in an electronic format that can be manipulated (EDDs). EA feels that all contractors should be provided data in a format that can be manipulated such that URS does not have significant advantage.

Government Response: The data packages posted come directly to AFCEC from the Lab and no other format will be available.

Holloman AFB

1. For the summary report of the activities conducted at the 20K ODU by

NationView in August 2012, and data/maps for remainder of soil sampling, only the perchlorate data map was provided. Report was missing all other analyses.

Government Response: All available documentation will be posted to the Google Site prior to the Final RFP release.

2. For SD027, there is no documentation posted in a file folder, though a Final ACM Work Plan Addendum has been submitted to NMED. Are any data available from Tetra Tech?

Government Response: All available documentation will be posted to the Google Site prior to the Final RFP release.

3. File folders and some documentation has been uploaded for OT016, OT034, OT052, SD25, and WP49. These sites have not previously been listed on Enclosure 1 or the SOO. Are these sites now being included in the PBR?

If so there is no documentation for OT034 or OT052.

Government Response: No, these sites are not a part of the NM-AZ PBR. The data on the Google Site affiliated with these sites was a part of the AR and could not be extracted from the upload. For the correct listing of sites that are a part of the NM-AZ PBR refer to Enclosure 1 and the Final SOO.

4. SS065 groundwater analytical data were not provided for well

SS65-DP03, although the groundwater results figure (Fig 5-2) indicates it is a completed monitoring well. Please provide the groundwater analytical data for this well or confirm that the well was not sampled.

Government Response: Refer to the SS065 groundwater analytical data report for the answer.

Additional Questions – Submitted 13 Mar 2013

1. Response to Question 227 in the 26 February 2013 Draft RFP Questions and Responses states the following: “RPM has suggested that all restoration projects south of Hardin Rd get some sort of Rad/MARSSIM survey.” Please clarify which sites. Are radiological surveys required to free-release recovered debris or scrap, or to release the property? Are these sites regulated as radiological sites under Kirtland’s radioactive materials permit?

Government Response: KAFB had suggested that the "RAD/MARSSIM" type survey be included to preclude mistakes in shipping/handling of collected materials. This has happened in the past and there wasn't an expectation of RAD material discovery. The suggestion was not site-specific but meant to be precautionary. The materials in question had been positioned at a recycler who discovered the low level rad in a process screening. We are not addressing any RAD sites in this contract exercise.

2. For the remaining radiological sites identified with this PBR (Luke AFB RW002, Holloman AFB RW042 and SD027), please provide the current permit/licensing status. Are these sites regulated by the Air Force Master Materials License?

Government Response: For the Luke site RW002 there is no permit with any external radiological regulatory agency, and no permit under the AF rad license. The only regulatory issue is the ROD that says that we will leave it alone and monitor adjacent radiation levels every year. For the Holloman AFB sites RW042 and SD027, neither are regulated by the Air Force Master Materials License.