NM-AZ_PBR_Draft_RFP_Questions_Responses_26_Feb_13.doc

Solicitation FA8903-12-R-0050 NM-AZ PBR

Draft RFP Questions and Responses

26 February 2013

Question 1. Part I, Section C Work Description/Specification (May 1997) (Tailored) states: “Work called for by the contract line items specified in SECTION B shall be performed in accordance with the Statement of Objectives (SOO), entitled “New Mexico –Arizona Group Performance Based Remediation (PBR)”, dated 12 Dec 2012, and Wage Determination # South Carolina (SC) 120041 and North Carolina (NC) #120093, both dated 06 Jan 2012.

Please clarify the SOO date of 18 Dec 2012 and Wage Determination relevant to New Mexico and Arizona projects.

Government Response: The correct wage determinations for New Mexico and Arizona have been uploaded.

Question 2. Part 1, Section B Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs Why is the lot number 0 instead of 1 for TU518 UST 7003?

Government Response: The error has been noted and revised in the Final RFP document.

Question 3. Section 1.0 Scope

Text states that the SOO is for “…eighty-eight (88) Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites and twenty-one (21) Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites.”

Table 1 Minimum Performance Objectives provides twenty-two (22) MMRP sites. Please confirm which is correct.

Government Response: The correct number of sites should read as eighty-five (85) Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites and twenty-one (21) Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites.

Question 4. Section 3.0 Government Furnished Information, Equipment, and Property (GRI, GFE, GRP)

Under the Cannon Air Force Base listing, information is provided regarding the remedial system associated with site ST070. Please clarify that this system is actually located at Kirtland Air Force Base. There are no active systems at Cannon Air Force Base according to the AF presentation given on 04 DEC 12 Government Response: There are no active systems at Cannon Air Force Base. The remedial system associated with site ST070 is located at Kirtland AFB.

Question 5. Section 4.4 Schedule and Planning Requirements- Integrated Master Schedule.

Based on our experiences developing the IMS for the Hill AF PBR, we have found that the size of MS Project file (over 65 MB) can hinder some. Would it be appropriate/acceptable to develop an IMS for each of the four bases separately and a fifth PMO IMS so that the schedule can be more easily shared, read, and used by everyone?

Government Response: Yes, it would be acceptable to develop an IMS for each of the four bases separately and a fifth PMO IMS so that the schedule can be more easily shared, read, and used by everyone.

Question 6. Section 4.6 Meeting/Teleconference Support

Please identify the anticipated frequency of Air Force Project Management Review (PMR) meetings and if these meetings will be contract surveillance meetings.

Government Response: The anticipated frequency of Air Force Project Management Review (PMR) meetings, which may include contract surveillance meetings, will be established at the contract kick-off meeting and is to be addressed in the PMP developed by the successful offeror.

Question 7. Section 4.10 Permits

Section states, “The Contractor shall develop, coordinate, apply, comply with, and/or modify all federal, state, local, and other applicable environmental permits, access agreements, easements, licenses, and certificates required to meet the objectives of this contract as detailed in 4.10.1 and 4.10.2.

All PBR IRP site objectives for Cannon, Holloman, and Kirtland Air Force Bases are mandated through the RCRA permits for each installation. Please clarify if the Contractor is responsible for development of any RCRA permit renewals which would occur during the period of performance.

Government Response: Yes, the Contractor is responsible for the development of any RCRA permit renewals which would occur during the period of performance.

Question 8. Table 1 Minimum Performance Objectives

Four new sites were added to Holloman Air Force Base: OW967, OW968, SS059/SS524 (SWMU 229), and OD20K.

Please provide all historical documentation for these site.

Government Response: All pertinent and applicable documents for the sites associated with the NM_AZ PBR can be found at the link below:

https://sites.google.com/a/afcecpbrshare.org/nm-az-group-fy13-pbr/ Question 9. Section 8.1.2 Transition of Work/Table 1 Minimum Performance Objectives In the embedded table, only SS059/SS524 of the new Holloman Air Force Base sites indicates the sites are under contract. Specifically, SS059/SS524 indicates work will be performed by Bhate until 03 JUL15 with an endpoint of ACM. Table 1 indicates that activities at these two sites will not commence until MAR15. However, two additional new sites (OW967 and OW968) are also footnoted with the same delayed start date, but there is no indication in Section 8.1.2 of transition work being currently performed.

Please clarify if OW967 and OW968 are under contract for additional work, and if so, please identify contractor and final endpoint deliverable for the contract.

Government (Holloman) Response: Refer to Question 83.

Question 10. Section 8.1.2 Transition of Work This section does not show any transition work being performed at SS067. However, the Air Force Presentation slides presented 04 DEC 12 stated that the site is under contract through 01 SEP15. With an MPO of SC2, please clarify that work can begin at this site upon contract award. If work is being performed by a contractor as indicated by the slide, please clarify the endpoint deliverable for the existing contract.

Government Response: Refer to Question 83.

Question 11. Section 8.1.2 Transition of Work This section does not show any transition work being performed at SS069. However, the Air Force Presentation slides presented 04 DEC 12 stated that the site is under contract through 01 SEP15. If work is being performed by a contractor as indicated by the slide, please clarify the endpoint deliverable for the existing contract.

Government Response: Refer to Question 83.

Question 12. Section 8.1.1 of the SOO. Is the contractor responsible for characterizing or monitoring of emerging contaminants (as opposed to remediation or treatment)? If yes, please define "emerging contaminants" as it relates to this contract and provide a list of chemicals that the AF considers "emerging contaminants".

Government Response: Emerging contaminants are addressed in Section 8.1.1 of the Final SOO.

Question 13. Please identify and provide duration of all Air Force (AFCEC, Base personnel, “Commander Review", etc) document review times.

Government Response: Refer to SOO Enclosure 4 Air Force PBR Document Review Process.

Question 14. Is it the responsibility of the contractor or the AF to pay NMED document fees? If it is the contractor's responsibility, is payment of NMED document fees accounted for in the ROM?

Government Response: It is the responsibility of the Air Force to pay for NMED document review fees.

Question 15. The December 18, 2012 version of the SOO included updates to the transition of work table in Section 8.1.2, by deleting contracts with expired POPs. Please indicate whether all available data (i.e. ERPIMS deliverables) are reports have been provided to all bidders for the contracts with expired POPs. Note that as of 1/8/2013, there remain several missing documents. The lack of site-specific and current information does not make it possible to develop and propose technical approaches that meet the solicitation requirements.

Government Response: Refer to Question # 8 of this document.

Question 16. Please define when NTP starts for sites that are funded at contract award. Does NTP start at contract award, or does NTP start upon AF acceptance of the Final Preliminary PMP.

Government Response: Notice to Process (NTP) starts at contract award, or the award of contract modifications to obligate current fiscal year options base on the bona fide need.

Question 17. Please clarify whether technical plans and reports need to be written in the UFP-QAPP format, or whether the UFP-QAPP format shall be limited to components of the work plan that address sampling and analysis as indicated in Section 6.1 of the SOO.

Government Response: For projects under this PBC in which sampling and analysis is part of the work that is being conducted, the entire work plan shall be written in the UFP-QAPP format. The UFP-QAPP format is not required for technical plans in which there is no sampling and analysis being planned. The UFP-QAPP format is not required for reports.

Question 18. Page 40 of 65, Section COOl, states Wage Determinations (WD's) for South Carolina and North Carolina. Please confirm that those should be removed and replaced with WD's for New Mexico and Arizona.

Government Response: Refer to Question 1.

Question 19. Page 62 of 65, Section I, 52.249-10 Alternate I, this clause applies to dismantling and demolition work. If this contract does not have that type of work, this clause should be removed.

Government Response: This contract will have both dismantling and demolition work.

Question 20. Page 65 of 65, Section J, SOO is shown as Attachment 1 yet the actual SOO is labeled as Attachment 3.

Government Response: The Final SOO is Attachment 3.

Question 21. 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? Yes; it is understood by AFCEC that the submitted schedule may change.

b) Will AFCEC ensure that the PBR contractor has uninterrupted access to ERPIMS in order to meet the MPS schedule? AFCEC will ensure uninterrupted access to the best of our ability.

c) Based on our experience with ERPIMS submittals, will AFCEC consider a 120 day submission schedule rather than 90 days? No; a 90 day submission schedule is what is to be followed.

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? It states in the Final SOO, Section 8.3: “ERPIMS data submissions are required within 90 days of sample collection”.

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? If such samples are collected and coincide with a project sampling event, the two can be combined into one ERPIMS submittal for efficiency.

Government Response: See above for responses as they are included above to answer sub-questions directly.

Question 22. Page 63 of 65 – Please specify the % of work that the Prime Contractor is required to perform in paragraph 52.236-01 PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR. It is currently listed as TBD.

Government Response: 51% of the work is to be performed by the Prime Contractor.

Question 23. Page 15 of 39 of Attachment 3 (SOO) states that AF will provide electricity and water at Holloman AFB but page 30 of 39 states that contractor is to supply electric meter and reimburse base. Will the AF provide electricity and water at Holloman AFB or is the contractor responsible?

Government (Holloman) Response: Refer to Question # 37 of this document.

Question 24. The same apparent contradiction applies for Luke AFB. Will the AF provide electricity and water at Luke AFB? Page 32 of 39 states that the contractor shall be responsible for the provision and cost of metering utilities; this again seems to contradict statements on page 15 of 39 which state the Bases will provide electricity and water. Furthermore, page 15 of 39 states the AF will provide water and electricity for any remedial systems installed at Luke AFB but the same section further states that the remote Water Dog Site for Luke AFB has NO utilities available and the contractor must plan for all utilities necessary. Please clarify if this means the contractor must plan for installation and connections for any utilities at the Water Dog site but the AF will still pay any associated utility bills over time or will the contractor additionally be responsible for ongoing utility bills associated with the Water Dog site?

Government (Luke) Response: Refer to Question # 37 of this document.

Question 25. Is the PBR Contractor required to pay annual fees to renew the New Mexico Bases’ RCRA permits ?

Government Response: It is the responsibility of the Air Force to pay annual fees to renew the New Mexico Bases’ RCRA permits.

Question 26. Is the PBR Contractor required to pay fees to modify the New Mexico Bases’ RCRA permits?

Government Response: It is the responsibility of the Air Force to pay fees to modify the New Mexico Bases’ RCRA permits.

Question 27. Page 18 of 39 of Attachment 3 (SOO) state there are no remedial systems at Kirtland AFB. Currently remedial systems are present at sites ST-70, UST-58, and WP-26. Are these systems excluded from this procurement?

Government Response: No, these systems are not excluded from this procurement. Attachment 3 (SOO) has been revised.

Question 28. Does the AF have full access for its contractors and rights to conduct any necessary work on any US Forest Service withdrawn land that is part of any listed sites in the SOO?

Government Response: Yes, the AF does have full access for its contractors and rights to conduct any necessary work on any US Forest Service land.

Question 29. [FedBizOpps] The pre-solicitation draft RFP notice states the following:

The Performance-Based Remediation (PBR) for these bases is anticipated to be 100% set aside for Small Business; however, the Acquisition Strategy has not been approved for this requirement. It has not been determined if this requirement will be issued under a Small Business Set-Aside or under Full and Open competition.

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.

Government Response: The Performance-Based Remediation (PBR) for these bases is a 100% set aside for Small Business.

Question 30. 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 substantial 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 90 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 ensuring increased quality and number of responses to the RFP.

Government Response: No, the potential bidding offerors have the maximum number of days to develop their proposals in response to the Final Request for Proposal (RFP) of 45 days.

Question 31. [RFP, Contract Clauses, Page 61 of 65] FAR 52.237-11, ACCEPTING AND DISPENSING OF $1 COIN (SEP 2008), is incorporated by reference. Is this clause relevant to the contract?

Government (PKJ) Response: No, this clause is not relevant.

Question 32. [SOO Paragraph 3.0, GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION, EQUIPMENT, AND PROPERTY (GFI, GFE, GFP)] Can AFCEC provide a copy of the most current ERPIMS databases for Cannon AFB, Holloman AFB, Kirtland AFB and Luke AFB sites to be addressed under the PBR?

Government Response: AFCEC can provide an Oracle export for the individual PBR installations for all of the ERPIMS data tables. Selected sites can be parsed out from this comprehensive dataset as needed.

Question 33. 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 the NM-AZ Group? If so, can AFCEC provide the most current GIS in native format for offerors to use in developing their proposals?

Government Response: No, this information doesn’t exist for the NM-AZ Group therefore AFCEC cannot provide the most current GIS in native format for offerors to use in developing their proposals.

Question 34. Both (Section 1.2 General PBR Scope and Requirements and Section 8.5 Operations and maintenance) include discussions concerning correcting five year review deficiencies or being responsible for implementing recommendations presented in five year reviews. These discussions leave the SOO open for scope increases or modifications not currently included; can AFCEC provide clarification on assumptions to be used in addressing these requirements within the cost estimate?

Government Response: Refer to the most current 5 yr review for each installation for assumptions.

Question 35. Will AFCEC provide the annual costs (labor and material O&M) to operate the current and existing remedial systems?

Government Response: No annual costs will be provided, however operating measures and system equipment listings which can be found in the system Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Plans can be found on the Google site.

Question 36. [SOO Paragraph 4.10.2, Rights of Access to Non-Air Force Real Property] The referenced paragraph states (emphasis added) “The Contractor shall prepare documents using Air Force provided templates, pay the rent or purchase price and associated expenses for the Air Force to maintain or modify existing rights of access, or to acquire new rights of access, to non-Air Force land which the Contractor needs to satisfy the objectives of this contract.” It will be extremely difficult for potential offerors to accurately estimate the costs associated with the requirements of this paragraph. In order to provide the most cost effective proposals, can the Air Force remove this requirement?

Government Response: The Government does not anticipate any issues with contractors needing to gain right-of-entry access to any sites off base.

Question 37. [SOO Paragraph 7.4, Site Preparation] The referenced paragraph states “The Contractor shall obtain appropriate approvals and shall construct connections or new systems for electrical power, water, sewer, gas distribution, telephone, and other utilities, as required, to meet the objectives of this contract. Additionally, the provision and cost of utility metering devices associated with implementation of existing and proposed remedies, including installation of individual meters for necessary utilities, is the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall meter all utilities consumption on a monthly basis.

Cannon AFB: Will provide utility service.

Holloman AFB: Contractor to supply electric meter and reimburse base, must connect to water, sewer and electric by contract.

Kirtland AFB: Contractor must follow base rules but must make connections themselves. Exception is that final electrical hookup to be performed by Kirtland personnel. Metering is not required for operation.

Luke AFB: For Luke the Contractor will pay to connect to utilities and will be charged at reasonable market rates. No utilities available at Waterdog Recreational Annex. Contractor will need to be self sufficient at that location.”

Section 8.1.1 of the SOO indicates that the “Contractor shall be responsible for: a) the provision and cost of metering the utilities associated with implementation of remedies.” These requirements are inconsistent; can AFCEC provide clarification on the specific requirements for the installation, metering and payment of utilities at each base? Will the offeror be required to pay for all utilities? What are “reasonable market rates” as stipulated for Luke AFB? What are the rates at the other bases?

Government Response: Section 7.4 of the SOO has been revised to accurately address the utility requirements.

Question 38. Section 3.0 of SOO. Please clarify whether there is a SVE system in place at Cannon AFB. There appears to be a mix-up with Kirtland AFB which has an SVE system in place for ST-070. In addition, it was mentioned that there is a bioventing system in place at Cannon AFB in the POL Yard area. Please confirm. If this system does exist, will AFCEC provide specifications on this system and its operational and performance history (e.g., O&M reports)?

Government Response: There are no systems at Cannon AFB; however there are systems at Kirtland AFB that must be maintained under this requirement. The SOO has been corrected.

Question 39. Referring to Section 7.1 of the SOO. Based on information provided during the Cannon AFB site visit and the corresponding presentation made by Mr. Higginbotham, there have been situations at the base in which cultural resources finds have been discovered during excavation activities. Please clarify since this information contradicts information in Section 7.1 for Cannon AFB.

Government Response: Cultural sites are not expected on Cannon AFB proper.

Question 40. Considering that many of the sites handled under this PBR are also included under the current (FY11) PBR or are under other contracts, please confirm that the status of these sites and the contract scope endpoints are accurate based on information in Section 8.1.2, Transition of Work, including new sites added to the Draft RFP that were not covered in the previous version of the SOO and during the site visits. Without such crucial information it will be difficult to plan the technical approaches for these sites along with associated costs and schedules.

Government Response: Information in Section 8.1.2 of the Final SOO is worded accurately.

Question 41. As stated during the site visits and as seen in the current document server, the list and availability documents on sites under the PBR is incomplete. Background documents and information from each Administrative Record (AR/IR) would be made available to bidders either through online sources or CD/DVD. Please provide direction on how we can retrieve or receive the AR/IR for each installation to support proposal preparation. In addition, will AFCEC consider making data available for projects currently under contract for which there may be no investigation report document on record? Making these documents and data available to all bidders early in the proposal process is necessary to develop technical approaches and pricing.

Government Response: The AR/IRs are available as follows:

Cannon AFB:

Clovis-Carver Public Library

701 N Main Street

Clovis, NM 88101

(575) 769-7840

Kirtland AFB:

http://www.kirtland.af.mil/environment.asp Holloman AFB:

Holloman has their Administrative Record on a website but it's maintained by an individual who will grant access to the requesting contractor through Base approval. If we can get a cumulative list together of all the contractors requesting access, she can take care of the grants all at once.

Her contact information is:

Ellen Tait ellen.tait@cevp.com Luke AFB:

Glendale Public Library, 5959 West Brown Ave., Glendale, AZ 85302 All available documentation will be available via the Google site prior to release of the Final RFP.

Question 42.What should bidders assume as a turnaround time for regulatory review of work plan and report documents by the New Mexico Environment Department and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality?

Government Response: Refer to the Draft Document Review Process provided in the Final RFP.

Question 43.When will AFCEC post Sections K, L, and M of the draft RFP?

Government Response: The Draft Sections L & M were posted separately from the Draft RFP. Final versions of Sections L & M will accompany the Final RFP for this acquisition. There is no Section K affiliated with this solicitation.

Question 44.Has the Air Force made a preliminary determination of the level of surveillance (Tier 1, 2, or 3) to which activities at each site will be subjected and if so, can AFCEC provide a list of the preliminary surveillance level that will be applied to each site?

Government Response: Levels of surveillance (Tiers 1, 2 & 3) will be determined by the Government PBR Team after award, once the Final Project Management Plan (PMP) is submitted to the Government.

Question 45.During the site visits, it was stated that document review time for the NMED was typically 270 days, up to one year. Is this the regulatory review time that should be used in the IMS for this proposal for the NM sites?

Government Response: Yes, the 270 review time for NMED should be utilized for the development of the IMS.

Question 46. Also, it appears that the most recent document from the AFCEC google web site is dated in 2009 - are there more recent documents pertaining to the sites and can they be uploaded ?

Government Response: Refer to Question # 46 of this document.

Question 47.Site visit briefing slides indicate regulatory review periods of up to 270 days from fee receipt; however, New Mexico Administrative Code 20.4.2.208 includes review times of up to 480 days for various deliverables. Can you confirm the NMED review periods assumed in the IMS should match NMAC 20.4.2.208?

Government Response: Refer to Question # 45 of this document.

Question 48.Can you provide the approximate duration between the time the Air Force receives an acceptable regulatory deliverable from a contractor to the time NMED review begins (i.e., the time for the Air Force to submit to NMED, plus the time for NMED to send a request for fee, plus the time for the Air Force to pay the fee)?

Government Response: No, NMED begins their review of a document when they are available to begin the review. Payment of the fees only gets the document on the docket to be reviewed.

Question 49. Can you confirm the Air Force pays NMEC review fees and all other fees described under NMAC 20.4.2, and the prospective contractor is not responsible for these fees?

Government Response: The successful offeror will not be responsible for payment of the Regulatory Fees; that is the responsibility of the Government.

Question 50. Statement of Work (SOO) enclosures identified on page 78 of the RFP were not included in the draft RFP package. When will AFCEC provide those enclosures?

Government Response: Yes, all appropriate Enclosures will be provided in the Final RFP.

Question 51. When will AFCEC provide Sections L and M for review?

Government Response: Refer to Question # 43 of this document.

Question 52. When does AFCEC anticipate issuing the final RFP?

Government Response: AFCEC anticipates releasing the Final RFP 15 February 2013.

Question 53. We request a minimum of 60 days to prepare a proposal after the final RFP is issued.

Government Response: Refer to Question # 30 of this document.

Question 54. When does the Air Force anticipate the contract will be awarded? This is important for the Integrated Master Schedule.

Government Response: AFCEC is anticipating an award of this PBR of 27 September 2013.

Question 55. One of the contract clauses that is incorporated by reference is 52.219-04, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns. Please explain how AFCEC will apply this clause to this contract.

Government Response: Does not apply.

Question 56. Though there are a number of clauses that would indicate that this is an environmental construction contract vs. an environmental services contract, please confirm that AFCEC considers this to be a construction contract requiring 15% of the work to be done by the small business prime.

Government Response: AFCEC considers this solicitation to be an environmental construction contract.

Question 57. What is the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for the contract?

Government Response: $42M Question 58. What are the Air Force’s projected Life Cycle Costs (LCCs)?

Government Response: Refer to Section M of the Final RFP.

Question 59. Page 70, Paragraph 4 states: “For all sites listed in Table 1 that have an approved DD prior to or during the POP, the Contractor shall develop performance models that describe 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).” We respectfully request that AFCEC re-evaluate this requirement. This PBR (like other PBRs) include landfills that have a ROD, have a remedy that has been implemented that is protective of human health and the environment, have achieved response complete, and are currently in long-term management. Because of the costs of excavation and disposal and the risks associated with digging up a landfill, most of these landfills are likely to remain in place indefinitely. Often the only activities being performed is an annual inspection to ensure the cap is still intact and Land Use Controls (LUCs) are being observed. Often the regulators and AF policy does not allow these requirements to be changed or the frequency of these inspections to be reduced. Therefore, there is no performance to monitor and no performance model that can be constructed. We recommend a performance model be 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.

Government Response: The Final SOO has been revised.

Question 60. Page 73, Table 1, Kirtland AL120 and ML125 – Please clarify the interim objective for these sites. Is it to achieve an approved Decision Document within 4 years of NTP (as stated in the first column) or to achieve an approved Characterization document within 4 years of NTP (as stated in the second column)? In addition, for the same sites, the phrases in the second column are unclear (i.e., LUCs).

Government Response: SOO has been revised to address question.

Question 61. Page 88, Section 4.10.2, Right of Access – This paragraph states that the PBR contractor will pay any rent associated with right of access agreements. Are there right of access agreements currently in place that require payment of rental fees? If so, what are the annual rental costs?

Government Response: Refer to Question #36 of this document.

Question 62. Draft section M categorical rating definitions of “very relevant” and “ relevant” which are used in the evaluation of Technical Ratings for Subfactor 4 (Corporate Experience) and Performance Confidence Rating for Factor 2 (Past Performance ) include very restrictive language, that based on a comparison with all other AFCEC PBRs, we found no similar type of language. Specifically, the Section M definitions of very relevant and relevant are shown below

· Very Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Effort involving performance based remediation in the states of New Mexico or Arizona valued at $10 million or more and involving 20 or more sites.

· Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Effort involving performance based remediation in the states of New Mexico or Arizona valued at $2 million or more and involving 10 or more sites.

The minimum dollar thresholds for PBR contract in NM/AZ, based on our knowledge, will severely restrict competition on this solicitation. We are aware of only two contracts that will meet the definitions above, both held currently by Shaw.

We recommend that AFCEC consider revision to the definitions by removing the geographic requirement and the number of sites.

Government Response: Evaluation Criteria has been revised.

Question 63. Table 1: Minimum Performance Objectives

Cannon AFB site RS103 Wastewater Playa Lake is no longer listed on page 10 of 39 of the 11 JAN 2013 SOO under the category of “Achieve Site Closeout within three years from NTP”. As RS103 is still listed on the SOO Enclosure 1 Site List, please confirm it is removed from this MPO category and contract.

Government Response: RS-103 has been removed from the requirement.

Question 64. SOO Enclosure 1 Site List – Cannon AFB

Table 1 of the 11 JAN 2013 SOO lists site RS103. As the site has been removed from the SOO (question 1 above), please confirm if it is removed from the contract.

Government Response: Refer to Question # 63 of this document.

Question 65. Part I-Schedule, Section B

The schedule was not revised and provided with the revised draft SOO on 11 JAN 2013. With the modification of sites at Holloman AFB, the CLINS have changed. Please provide the updated CLINs.

Government Response: The updated Sub-CLINs will be provided with the Final RFP.

Question 66. Table 1 Minimum Performance Objectives

Two additional sites were added to the 11 JAN 2013 SOO for Holloman AFB: TU515 and TU904. The AF has not provided any technical information on these sites

Government Response: Refer to Question # 8 of this document.

Question 67. Statement of Objectives, Paragraph 8.6, states “The Contractor is prohibited from off-setting contract cost or invoice cost upon receipt of proceeds generated through recycling commodity sales. 100% of all commodity sales proceeds must be returned to the government. Cash payments are prohibited.” Request clarification on the Air Force’s preferred method for return of commodity sales proceeds.

Government (PKJ) Response: Please refer to Paragraph 8.6 of the SOO.

Question 68. The CSE Phase II report for the Kirtland MMRP sites addresses 31 sites but only 7 sites are identified in the SOO Enclosure 1. Likewise, the CSE Phase 1 report for the Holloman MMPR site addresses 42 sites but only 13 sites are identified in the SOO Enclosure 1. Request confirmation that the PBR Contractor is not responsible for any restoration or site closure activities (e.g., EE/CA, DD documents, site remediation effort, etc.) at the MMRP sites that are addressed in the CSE reports but that are not identified in SOO Enclosure 1.

Government Response: The contractor is only responsible for those sites that are identified in SOO Enclosure 1.

Question 69. In Enclosure 5, the definition of Site Closure includes the following statements:

“For practical purposes, Site Closeout occurs when cleanup goals have been achieved that allow unrestricted use of the property (i.e., no further LTM, including institutional controls, is required) and that all site decommissioning has been completed.” Additionally the SC definition states “Regulatory concurrence may include “no further action” (NFA) but does not include variations such as “no further active remediation”, “regulatory closure with restrictions”, “conditional site closure” or functional equivalents. These variations would involve requirements for LTM and would therefore not allow for unrestricted use.”

For MMRP projects, the state of technology within the industry is such that no current systems can ensure 100% identification and removal of potential munitions and explosives of concern (MEC). Therefore, land use restrictions are required even when response complete (RC) is done and regulatory concurrence with no further action (NFA) is obtained. Land use restrictions can be developed that allow unrestricted use of the surface but restrict subsurface activities (e.g., establish a requirement for UXO Support during a future construction project). Request clarification on how the Air Force will apply the definition of SC to MMRP sites given that unrestricted use may not be possible to achieve.

Government (MMRP) Response: Refer to Acronyms and Definitions Enclosure.

Question 70.In the Kirtland CSE Report (Section 14.4), several MMRP sites are recommended for Surface Clearance. However, the term surface clearance is not defined within the industry and is applied differently by government agencies. On recent projects we have seen the term Surface Clearance defined by various government agencies as:

· 100% metal free, including removal of all non-munitions related metals (e.g., soda cans, nuts & bolts, wire, etc.)

· Removal of all munitions related items but removal of non-munitions related metals is not required

· Removal of ordnance related debris but removal of non-ordnance related munitions debris is not required (e.g., excludes projectiles smaller than 0.50 caliber, expended casings, etc.)

Based upon this variance in definitions, please provide the AFCEC definition of “surface clearance”?

Government Response: In general surface clearance efforts are based on site specific conditions, current and planned future land use, follow-on effort, stakeholder perception, etc.

If the scope indicates 100% surface clearance, this typically means all metal objects are identified, inspected (if needed), collected/segregated, and removed from the site (if deemed safe) no matter what the item is (e.g., cans, bolts, wire, etc.) AS WELL AS any non-metal items which may impact follow-on effort(s)

· This is especially important if follow-on effort includes DGM

· Sometimes a size limit may be provided

If no follow-on efforts and RC is the objective, then although a good to do and beneficial overall to clean-up the site, it maybe cost prohibitive to the Air Force to have all munitions/range related debris that does not pose an explosive hazard and/or present a continued MC source/increase MC concentrations (e.g., spent casings, broken clay targets) removed, let alone have all debris removed.

Question 71. Please identify any and all Sites whose schedule, remedial strategy or potential endpoint may be adversely impacted by ongoing or proposed MILCON project activities.

Government Response: There are no sites affiliated with this PBR that would be adversely impacted by ongoing or proposed MILCON projects.

Question 72. Can a Word document of SOO dated 18 Dec 2012 be made available? If not, can an unprotected PDF of the draft RFP be made available?

Government Response: No.

Question 73. When will answers to the site visit questions provided 14 Dec 2012 be made available?

Government Response: Answers to the Site Visit questions was posted to the Google Site on 28 Jan 13.

Question 74. Page 40 of the pdf RFP (section C) makes reference to a wage determination for NC and SC dated 6 Jan 2012. It also refers to a SOO dated 12 Dec 2012. Please clarify.

Government Response: Refer to Question 1.

Question 75. Sections D, K, L and M of the RFP are blank. Will draft versions of these sections be made available before the final RFP is released?

Government Response: Sections D, K, L and M of the RFP have been uploaded.

Question 76. NMED document reviews are currently taking 15 months to complete given the process detailed below:

a. Day 0: Contractor to provides the installation with the deliverable/document,

b. Days 1-30: Installation then staffs and submits the deliverable to the NMED (30 calendar days),

c. Days 31-90: NMED sends fee request letter to installation (60 calendar days as per 20.4.2.201 NMAC),

d. Days 91 -180: Air Force payment of fee to NMED (30-90 days),

e. Days 181 -451: NMED review time actually begins upon receipt of fee and will vary as indicated in the tables under 20.4.2 .205 through 20.4.2.210 NMAC. Typical review time is 270 days for most corrective action submittals.

Based upon the above typical regulatory document review timeline, we have the following questions and requests for clarification.

· Please confirm the number of calendar days required for AFCEC to issue fee payment to NMED to start the regulatory review process. NMED usually requires payment within 60 days of submittal of the invoice. Most invoices are paid within 45 days.

· Also, please confirm the minimum number of days that AFCEC requires to review a Draft Document and that 30 days for installation staffing of documents is sufficient. AFCEC requires 21 days for the Government review of draft documents.

· Please identify the number of days Kirtland AFB Public Affairs Office (PAO) requires for review of the document prior to staffing. KAFB PA/OPSEC review can take up to one week to clear, but typically takes less than that.

· Do other installations require PAO review of documents?

Kirtland AFB Response: documents released to public would most likely require both OPSEC and PA approval prior to release.

Cannon AFB Response: Does not require PA review of routine regulatory documents.

Holloman AFB Response: Does not require PA review of routine regulatory documents.

Luke AFB Response: Does not require PA review of routine regulatory documents.

· Would the Air Force consider extending the 2 and 3 year SC minimum performance objectives within the NM installations to 3 and 4 years, respectively? No, the allocated MPO timeframes are not negotiable and NMED review times needs to be accounted for in the Technical Approach and IMS to achieve SC.

Government Response: See above for answers.

Question 77. Given the time for NMED to review a document and provide approval (6 months to 2 years), can the Contractor separate out Regulator and AF approval of documents for milestone payments as allowed on already awarded PBRs (e.g Front Range Group)?

Government Response: Yes, milestone payments can be separated to Achieve AF approval and to Achieve Regulatory Approval.

Question 78. Page 9 of the SOO (Table 1) indicates that activities at SWMU 229, 20 and 19 will commence no sooner than March 2015 and that the minimum performance objective is RC within 9 years. Please clarify as the POP is 120 months, which will likely be exceeded if the site work cannot commence before March 2015. Also, Section 8.1 of the SOO indicates current contractor POP ends 31 Jul 2015 which would delay commencement of site activities by another five months. Please clarify which is the correct POP end for current contractor, when site activities can begin and the time line for the performance objective of RC.

Government Response: MPO was reduced from nine (9) years to seven (7) years to achieve RC.

Question 79. Page 13 of the SOO dated 18 December 2012 refers to Enclosures 1 through 7. None of these enclosures were updated with the release of the draft RFP. Specifically, Enclosure 1 – Site List is out dated as sites were added/removed and reclassified with regard to minimum performance objectives in Table 1 of the SOO. Will updated Enclosures be made available before release of the final RFP?

Government Response: Refer to Question # 50 of this document.

Question 80. Page 29 of the SOO: Cannon AFB: information provided during the site visit regarding the potential for cultural resources would contradict the information provided in the SOO.

Government (Cannon) Response: Refer to Question #39 of this document.

Question 81. Page 29 of the SOO: Holloman AFB: The Burrowing owl is a resident endangered species at Holloman as well as Kirtland.

Government (Holloman) Response: During periods when Burrowing Owls are nesting, avoidance will be necessary. On KAFB, we can get up to 4-5 nesting pairs at a time.

Question 82. Page 30 of the SOO: Site preparation specifics for Holloman and Luke indicate contractor will have to pay for electricity and water contradicting the information provided in page 15 where it says the AF will provide electricity and water. Please clarify what the contractor will be responsible for.

Government Response: Refer to Question # 37 of this document.

Question 83. Page 33 – 34 of the SOO: Transition of Work: Please note the following corrections and omissions from the table:

Holloman

W912PP-11-C-0015/NationView/1Aug15

ACM

Site Summary Report

Government Response: TO 0008 was Terminated for Convenience which required it to be removed from this section.

Question 84. Page 33 of the SOO: Please indicate when the Draft RFI by Shaw under the WERC09 Midwestern Region FY11 PBR will be made available?

Government Response: Refer to Question # 8 of this document.

Question 85. Please clarify which regulatory agency will provide approval/acceptance of MMRP related documents at each site. Also, please indicate the level of involvement of each agency for the MMRP sites.

Government Response: For those Installations that have the MMRP sites listed on the RCRA permit, the State will be the Regulatory Authority. For those Installations whose MMRP sites are not on the RCRA permit, the USEPA Region 6 will be the Regulatory Authority.

Question 86. Section 6.2 of the SOO requires all documents be uploaded to the CDUT. Section 4.3 requires a web-based project folder to be maintained by the Contractor. Section 4.3 states “At close-out, all documents on the web-based project folder will be transferred to DVD media and delivered to the AF, and place on the AFCEE contractor drop-zone website). Please clarify if and when the documents need to be uploaded to the CDUT. Also, please clarify if the Contractor is responsible for upload to the CDUT or if the AF will upload using the DVDs provided upon close-out.

Government Response: These are two (2) different requirements, hence stated in two different sections of the SOO. Yes, deliverables are to be uploaded by the contractor to the CDUT per the SOO and directions will be provided under separate cover upon award for the CDUT Tool. Also, upon close-out of the PBR contract, the contractor will be required to provide, in DVD media, a copy of all of the deliverables that were uploaded to the Project Website per Section 4.3 of the SOO.

Question 87. For the Front Range PBR, the AF released the assumptions that governed the site-by-site ROMs during the RFP stage. Can AFCEC provide the site-specific ROM assumptions for the NM-AZ Group PBR?

Government Response: No; individual site ROMs will not be provided as there are 106 sites affiliated with this PBR. The ROM for the overall PBR is $42M.

Question 88. Where Work Plans were submitted to AFCEC and NMED, can these please be provided along with any regulatory correspondence on concurrence or noted deficiencies with the Work Plans. If these Work Plans exist, they are not available in the data repository provided or posted on NMEDs website.

Government Response: All available information will be provided on the Google Site for this PBR; refer to Question # 8 of this document.

Question 89. In addition, the majority of the sites required permit modifications; could AFCEC please provide documentation on the status of the permit modifications. If an RFI or data reports were generated submitted to AFCEC or NMED, can AFCEC please provide these reports. In addition, please provide NMEDs concurrence or noted deficiencies with these reports.

Government Response: Refer to Question # 8 of this document.

Question 90. Have any other Work Plans been submitted to AFCEC or NMED for any of the sites not covered under the Mid-Western PBR? If so please provide.

Government Response: Refer to Question # 8 of this document.

Question 91. Please provide the actual duration documented by the Contractor for the Public Affairs Office and document Staffing on all Kirtland AFB documents associated with the Midwest PBR. This will allow the NM AZ contractors to provide a more realistic schedule for the Kirtland AFB sites.

Government Response: Government review is 30 days.

Question 92. Please provide the actual duration documented by the Contractor for NMED review on each document submitted for the Midwest PBR. If documents have been submitted, but NMED has not provided a Notice of Deficiency or Approval as of yet, please indicate the date the document was submitted to NMED for each document and indicate that NMED review is not complete. This will allow the NM AZ contractors to provide a more realistic schedule for the solicitation.

Government Response: NMED review times are not set in stone and are only a guideline to follow for proper planning; refer to Question # 45 of this document.

Question 93. For the Midwest PBR, please provide the average number of days the Contractor records from submittal of a document to NMED until the clock starts on the NMED review, which would include the time for the fee letter to be issued by NMED and AFCEC payment of the fee. This will allow the NM AZ contractors to provide a more realistic schedule for the solicitation.

Government Response: NMED review times are not set in stone and are only a guideline to follow for proper planning; refer to Question # 45 of this document.

Question 94. To pursue the SC process, who is responsible for managing and submitting the requests for Permit modifications?

Government Response: The successful offeror of this PBR.

Question 95. For sites considered for closeout, who will be responsible for the preparation of the Statement of Basis—the installations or the regulators?

Government Response: The Regulator…