NM-AZ_PBR_Final_RFP_Q As_041613.doc

NM-AZ PBR Final RFP Questions

FA8903-12-R-0050

Submitted: 08 April 2013

Cannon AFB

1. At SW127/128 is the re-evaluation of the risk assessment currently within the scope of work being conducted under the North Wind extended contract?

Government Response: No.

2. Is LF005 an active landfill and if so is the Air Force currently maintaining the cap on the closed cell #3? Will the Air Force continue to maintain the cap on cell #3, or is it the responsibility of the PBR contractor.

Government Response: This site is closed with NFA LTM with the state and does not require further corrective action. It will be the responsibility of the successful offeror to maintain the cap on cell #3.

3. In the Q&A responses on January 16, 2013 listed several sites that contractors are currently working on and given the posted preliminary files, it is evident that some of the contracts have been extended beyond the initial contract POP presented in draft sections of SOO 8.1.12. Could you please provide the contract end dates for the following contractors performing work at the following sites so bidders can properly structure the IMS:

a. Shaw: DP036

b. North Wind: TU071, TU070 and TU126, SW127/128

c. Tetra Tech: SD022

d. URS: SS501, TU502, TU503, TU504, TU505, SS507, DA508, TA129

Government Response: a. AFCEC has no record of Shaw performing work at DP036; b. 2010; c. Sept 2012; and d. 31 August 2013 Holloman AFB

1. The modified SOO released on 04 April 2013 states SR859 Former Skeet Range 2. In previous SOO ,TS859 is listed as Former Skeet Range 2. Was SR859 intended to be TS859?

Government Response: TS859 has not ever been a part of the SOO requirement. SR859 is and always has been the Former Skeet Range 2.

2. Will the successful contractor receive NTP for the MMRP MRSs at the same time?

Government Response: Refer to the SOO for when the NTP for the MMRP MRSs are anticipated to occur.

3. At the OD20K, AFCEC has not made available any information on the depth to groundwater at the site. NationView redeveloped and sampled the four wells and has available field logs or notes (if not tables of field measurements) with water level measurements from 2012. Please make this critical data available so that the RC can be costed with similar information to all bidders.

Government Response: All available documents have been posted to the Google Apps site.

4. AFCEC has provided no information on a vapor intrusion program at Holloman AFB. Please provide the status of any Holloman AFB vapor intrusion program and whether the PBR contractor will be responsible for this program?

Government Response: The contractor is only responsible for the requirements and sites identified in the SOO.

Kirtland AFB

1. It appears the SubCLINs (AA and AB) are reversed for the following two sites in Attachment L-6 of the Final RFP. Please clarify.

Government Response: The SubCLINs provided in L-6 is intended to be an example only; it is the contractor’s responsibility to develop and propose the SubCLINs affiliated with the proposed Technical Approach which should be based on the provided SOO.

ML125 - Field Firing Range

AL120 - Proximity Fuze Range

General

1. Please confirm that the Government ROM of $35 million to $42 million includes the approximately 7% New Mexico Gross Receipts tax for Cannon AFB, Holloman AFB, and Kirtland AFB.

Government Response: The Government ROM includes assumptions for New Mexico Gross Receipts tax

2. Given the late (posted 04APR13 by AFCEC after Final RFP was posted on 28MAR13) changes to the Holloman MRS sites MPOs and time frames to achieve POs, please provide additional time for proposal response as these changes affect technical approach, the IMS, and MPS costing. These changes affect the entire portfolio of NM-AZ PBR sites as the ROM is set at the portfolio level.

Government Response: No, an extension cannot be granted due to these changes.