NM-AZ_PBR_Final_RFP_Q As.doc

NM-AZ PBR Q&As Question submitted 21 Mar 2013:

Based on the items encountered during the Holloman CSE Phase II at Sites XU853, XU854, FI857, and ML866 and need for additional investigation, will the minimum performance objectives be modified?

Government Response: No, the minimum performance objective will not be modified.

Questions submitted 25 Mar 2013:

1. Attachments L-1 and L-2 Milestone Payment Schedules: The heading for column G in these forms is “Projected CLIN Date of Exercise* MM/DD/YYYY.” Attachment L-6 provided the Projected Date of Exercise for each SubCLIN; however, none of them were specific days in MM/DD/YYYY format. May we use the Projected Dates from Attachment L-6? If not, can the government provide a specific date for offerors to use for the SubCLINs to be awarded in “1Q FY14,” so that we can calculate the remaining SubCLINS?

Government Response: Attachment L-6 was provided as guidance and is being provided to communicate Air Force expectations for the development of CLIN/Sub-CLIN Structures and the correlation with the subsequent development of the MPS and the IMS. This guidance is not intended to remove Contractor flexibility. The examples provided are for illustration purposes only and are not intended to be inclusive of all acceptable approaches.

2. Attachment L-1 Milestone Payment Schedule: Per the questions released on March 19, the “Total at Award” should be the amount being obligated for the first year. Please confirm if the “first year” refers to government fiscal year or calendar year. For example, if it is government fiscal year and the award date is 09/27/2013, the Total at Award would only be the SubCLINs with a Projected Date of Exercise of “At Award,” whereas if the first year refers to calendar year, the Total at Award would also include SubCLINS with Projected Date of Exercise of “1Q FY14.”

Government Response: “First year” refers to first 12 months of contract performance.

3. Section M, Evaluation Criteria, has potentially competing factors between number of SCs achieved and price. Specifically, Paragraph M002, B, (2), Subfactor 1.1 (a) includes achieving SC as a desired evaluation factor, where M0002, D factors overall price and price reasonableness. This potential conflict requires the contractor to predict what is more favorable to the government. By hypothetical example, would it be more advantageous for the government to achieve SC at 30 sites for half the ROM or 60 sites for double the ROM, or as many sites as possible within the high end of the ROM? To allow contractors to target government’s primary desire, please provide clarification on how the government will evaluate and weight SCs versus price.

Government Response: For all sites in Table 1 of the SOO, the offerer provides a sound approach to achieve SC or move as close to SC as possible during the POP without expending large sums for contingencies, including: 1) Defensible strategies for advancing the site status as far as reasonable per the preferred performance objectives in Section 1.0 of the SOO, and 2) A business case analysis to support the selected performance objective (i.e., the rationale for why SC is either not technically feasible or not cost-effective for those sites not proposed to achieve SC within the POP).

Questions submitted 26 Mar 2013:

Cannon AFB, TU503 and TU505: Please provide the PA/SI results for TU503 and

TU505. Current laboratory reports on the Google Site, 8 Site PA/SI folder does not include the PA/SI results for TU503 and TU505.

Government Response: The PA/SI results for TU503 and TU505 are on the google site.

Holloman AFB, OD020K: What phases of the closure plan have been completed?

Government Response: Sampling and Analysis.

Holloman AFB, LF029:

1. Will the Final Decision Document produced in 1993 be adhered to?

Government Response: No.

What phase of this process was last completed?

Government Response: RFI

2. Will the FDD produced in 1992 be provided?

Government Response: The document is available on the google site.

3. Is the summary report for the RI conducted in 1992 available?

Government Response: The document is available on the google site.

4. Is the SRFI report from 2006 available?

Government Response: The document is available on the google site.

5. Was the 2009 Removal Action ever implemented?

Government Response: No.

6. Is there a current CSS in place for the area?

Government Response: No.

Submitted 26 Mar 2013:

KAFB:

1) EOD Hill Site: Slide 12 of the KAFB Site Briefing Power Point presentation (Part 1) shows 5 proposed monitoring wells. Slide 13 shows 8 proposed monitoring wells. The 2012 Revised Site Investigation Work Plan, Section 3.1.1.2, states “During advancement of each of the eight boreholes (KAFB-EOD1 through KAFB-EOD5)”. Please clarify the number of wells proposed for the EOD Hill SI investigation.

Government Response: There were 5 proposed monitoring wells.

HAFB:

For HAFB LF029:

1) Has the Holloman Final ESS Rev 3 dated April 2011 for LF-029 been approved as is?

Government Response: No.

2) Have the Response Actions listed in the LF-29 ESS section 1.5.3 and further described throughout the document been performed by others under separate contract?

Government Response: No.

3) If the PBR contractor is to perform the work outlined in the LF-29 ESS, is the USACE LF-29 Work Plan dated January 2009 still valid, or would a new work plan be required for approval?

Government Response: A new work plan would be required.

4) When was the last groundwater sampling event performed at LF-29?

Government Response: 2006

5) Has NMED indicated that additional groundwater monitoring is necessary at LF-29?

Government Response: The recommendation for NFA was rejected by NMED in 2005.

HAFB UST AOCs (AOCs (TU-C503, -C506, -C508 and -C518):

1) We would like to make you aware that four releases at HAFB UST AOCs (TU-C503, -C506, -C508 and -C518) have been documented in the draft RFI documents posted in March 2013 on the Google documents repository. Each release site will require response actions for DRO in groundwater, and several for DRO or metals in soil. Within the framework of the NMED required Corrective Actions for USTs containing petroleum products and the attendant document review time frames; including finalizing the RFIs, receiving approved corrective measure work plans, completing eight quarters of confirmation monitoring and petitioning for and receiving No Further Action; it is not possible to complete the required work within the current MPO of SC in 3 years, the basis for which preceded the findings of the current RFI. Instead, the work described is likely to require an additional 3 years, not including the 480 days NMED requires to review Corrective Measures having a Risk Assessment, which may be a component of the remedies. Given the actual encountered conditions at each of these AOCs (TU-C503, -C506, -C508 and -C518), will the current MPO of 3 years to SC be extended?

Government Response: No, the MPO will remain as stated.

Submitted 26 Mar 2013:

We understand that you and your team are working diligently to upload documents for the NM-AZ PRB in advance of the final RFP planned for later this week. To hopefully assist with this effort, we wanted to drop you a quick note of the documents we noted as being vital to preparation of the proposal, presented below, that were not observed on the Google site.

1) Cannon AFB - Draft CACP for Site TUO17.

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

2) Cannon AFB - AR-331

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

3) Cannon AFB - AR-1180.

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

4) Cannon AFB - Draft PA/SI for Site SD022.

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

5) Cannon AFB- 2012 Management Action Plan.

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

6) Canon AFB - Study of CAFB background inorganic levels (AR- 0367)

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

7) Cannon AFB - Naturally Occurring Concentrations of Inorganics and Background Concentrations of Pesticides (2006)

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

8) Cannon AFB - AR-0971, in which NMED approves the circa 2006 revised Naturally Occurring Concentrations of Inorganics and Background Concentrations of Pesticides for CAFB.

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

9) Cannon AFB - Prelim Investigation Reports for sites TU502, TU503, TU 504 and TU505.

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

10) Luke AFB - Site TU044-Waterdog Recreational Annex, Report containing groundwater monitoring data for 2011 and 2012, including data from newly installed wells MW-13, 14, 15 and -16.

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

11) Luke AFB - Waterdog Annex - Feasibility studies documenting why other remediation methods were not appropriate for the site.

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

12) Luke AFB - Site DP023 Surface Impoundment West of Facility 993, Reports outlining the remedial action including location of the excavated area, post-remedial sampling, and delineation sampling are not available.

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

13) Luke AFB Site: FT07 and FT07E North Fire Training Area, Reports containing information on the operation of the SVE system including data from progress borings drilled after completion of remediation

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

14) Luke AFB Site SS042: Fuel tank farm, Report evaluating effectiveness of SVE remediation including data from progress borings; Were the vent wells abandoned or do they remain in place?

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

15) Luke AFB: Base-wide: Groundwater potentiometric maps, current and historical

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

16) Luke AFB: LF25: Landfill and skeet range, Report documenting removal action and confirmation sampling missing

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

17) 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: All available documents have been posted to the Google Apps site.

18) Holloman AFB: Any data, reports, work plans from SD27, DP30, SD33 and SS39 performed by TetraTech since 2008.

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

Submitted 1 Apr 2013:

Are previously completed PPQs allowed for this proposal?

On question 122 from Draft RFP Questions and Responses (26 February 2013)

a. If PPQs have been previously completed by our customers in response to another AFCEC PBR proposal, are new PPQs required? Under prior AFCEC PBRs, we were allowed to “reuse” PPQs, taking a huge burden off our customers.

The response:

Government Response: Section L has been revised and will be submitted in the Final RFP.

Unfortunately, I do not see the answer in Final Section L released on March 28, 2013.

Government Response: Yes, previously completed PPQs are acceptable to submit.

Submitted 2 Apr 2013:

QUESTIONS ON FINAL RFP POSTED 28 MAR 13

Follow up Questions on Holloman AFB-From AFCEC Responses Posted 26 FEB 13

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.

Follow Up Question: In the Air Force response, it was simply noted that “TO 0008 was Terminated for Convenience which requires it to be removed from this section.” Please verify whether the information contained in this table is correct in its entirety and will the government be modifying the table contained in Section 8.1.2 Transition of Work, published in the Final SOO on 28 MAR 13?

Government Response: The government has modified the table in Section 8.1.2 Transition of Work.

Follow up Questions on Cannon AFB-From AFCEC Responses Posted 27 MAR 13

8.

CAFB 8 sites PASI - no lab data was provided for site C505 and lab data is missing for 2 borings at C504. Please post this data to the website..

Government Response: Refer to question # 7 above.

Follow Up Question: Can you confirm that the data are not available from URS?

Government Response: All available laboratory data for C504 have been uploaded and can be found on the Google Apps site. C505 has yet to be sampled yet. Sampling at C505 is expected to be completed 19 Apr 2013.

9.

Please provide the sample location maps associated with the January 2013 sampling event for the Cannon AFB 8 Site PASI, these have not been included with the posted files.

Government Response: Refer to question # 7 above.

Follow Up Question: The maps posted to the website do not show the locations of the two contingency borings, as such the data posted cannot be interpreted without the locations of the contingency borings installed by URS.

Government Response: The most current survey data for the eight site PA/SI at Holloman AFB can be found on the Google Apps site.

Holloman AFB- New Questions

1. Holloman Site SS524 has not been identified in any of the AFCEC provided Holloman AFB documents for T-38 (SS059). Please clarify the association of SS524 with SS059.

Government Response: SS524 is an EESOH-MIS identifier. SS524 is an alias/duplicate of SS059, T-38 Test Cell.

2. The 2005 VCM Work Plan for T-38 indicates groundwater monitoring and extraction wells and associated piping will be decommissioned across the site in conjunction with the ongoing Petroleum Contaminated Soil (PCS) excavation activities. The Revised Jan 2013 PWS VCM T-38 provided by AFCEC specifies “Abandon outer monitoring wells and remaining vapor extraction wells”. Please clarify how many wells are to be abandoned under the VCM Plan.

Government Response: Refer to the document “T-38 Interim Summary Report 2004 – 2012”.

3. Please confirm that the T-38 excavation labeled as “2013” on Figure 1 – Excavation Summary (Projected through 2013) in the document “T-38 Interim Summary Report 2004 – 2012 will be completed prior to PBR CLIN award and if the estimated volume of excavated soil is 93,000 cubic yards.

Government Response: Refer to the document “T-38 Interim Summary Report 2004 – 2012”.

4. Information for SS039 has not been posted to the AF website. It is our understanding that Tetra Tech conducted a soil cleanup at the site in Spring 2012. Information about this cleanup should be available to all potential bidders. The soil cleanup effort presumably addressed potential source areas of contamination, which would have a direct bearing on future contaminant trends in groundwater. Daily field logs, daily reports, and waste manifests with excavation volumes are all currently the possession of Tetra Tech but not the rest of the bidders. Can AFCEC please provide all bidders with currently available information for this site?

Government Response: Referenced information pertaining to SS039 has been uploaded to the Google Apps site.

5. The CSE Phase II Draft Report for Holloman AFB, identified several MRSs in Section 12 with reduced acreage, specifically, TS851a (3.1 acres), FI857a (0.8 acres), SR858a (3.2 acres), TS859a (8 acres), TS862a (5.7 acres), SR863a (0.2 acres), and RR869a (3.5 acres) and recommended for further action under MMRP. It is our assumption the performance objectives in the SOO relates only to the MRSs that are recommended for further action under MMRP with the reduced acreage. Is this a correct assumption?

Government Response: Contractors need to make their own determination.

6. In the event that soil contaminated lead or PAHs is removed in order to meet the MPO, it is our assumption that that MRS can be graded versus bringing in clean fill. Is this a correct assumption for Holloman AFB and Cannon AFB?

Government Response: Contractors need to make their own determination.

Submitted 2 Apr 2013:

1. Section L, page 13 of 23, paragraph 4.4 Technical Risk, page 15 of 23, Subfactor 1.2, Plan B Contingency Approach – Both paragraphs request essentially the same information. Within a severely limited page count, there is no room for duplication of information. In addition, paragraph 4.4 does not seem to be addressed as a discrete evaluation criterion in Section M. We recommend that all risk discussion be contained in Subfactor 1.2 Plan B. Is this acceptable?

Government Response: Refer to the information and guidance provided in Sections L and M.

2. Section L, page 3 of 23, Table 2.2 – We are concerned that the 80 page allotment for tabs 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 is inadequate given that we are to address 106 sites in three separate sections. The RFP takes a full page (risk ¼ of page 13, Technical Approach ½ page of pages 14 and 15, and Plan B ¼ page of pages 15 and 16) just to request what information we are to present, with no technical analysis or detail. We request a minimum of 106 pages to address these factors.

Government Response: Refer to the information and guidance provided in Sections L and M.

3. Section L, page 3 of 23, Table 2.2; Section L, page 13 of 23, para 4.1 Volume Organization; and Section M002, page 2 of 13, para A., Evaluation Factors and Subfactors – The Section L instructions on Volume 2 content are not consistent. However, the Section L instruction on page 13 of 23 is consistent with Section M. We request that direction be given to follow Section L page 13 and Section M.

Government Response: Refer to the information and guidance provided in Sections L and M.

4. Section L, page 3 of 23, Table 2.2 and Section L, page 6 of 23, 2.3.6 b), Tab Indexing – With regard to the above question, if we are to follow the instructions referenced for this question, what information is expected to be provided under Tab 4.2, Standard Proposal Information and Tab 4.3, General Instructions?

Government Response: Refer to the information and guidance provided in Sections L and M.

5. Section L, page 14 of 23, Sub-Factor 1.1, Technical Approach – Does AFCEC have a preference for the order of presentation of the sites? Should we follow the order in SOO Tables 1 and 2, the order in Attachment 1E1 to the SOO, or in an order that best represents our offering in our opinion?

Government Response: There is no preference.

6. Offeror’s Request for Information (RFI)/Questions – Are all of AFCEC’s responses to RFIs/questions (dating back to the 16 January 2013 set) still applicable to the Final RFP and attachments?

Government Response: No, not all of AFCEC’s responses to RFIs/questions (dating back to the 16 January 2013 set) are still applicable due to changes of the Final RFP and attachments.

7. We are assuming an award date of October 1, 2013 for scheduling and cost purposes. If not, what NTP date should we use?

Government Response: Refer to the guidance in the Final RFP package.

8. CLIN 0001 allows for only one iteration of the PMP, whereas section 4.2, page 18 of 39 of the SOO requires annual (or as required) updates. May we add sub-CLINS to account for annual updates?

Government Response: Yes, the Contractor may add sub-CLINS to account for annual updates.

9. Many PMP sections will be specific to each installation. Does AFCEC envision one Program level PMP or a PMP for each installation?

Government Response: AFCEC is anticipating one Program level PMP.

10. Holloman AFB, Site SS059, T-38 Test Cell: Can AFCEC provide a site map showing all existing wells?

Government Response: Maps of the T-38 test cell can be found on the Google Apps site.

11. Holloman AFB, Site SS017, Former BX Service Station: Can AFCEC provide the SOW, Tech Memo, Work Plan, or Design Document for Soil and/or GW Remediation Systems for SS017 or advise where we may obtain these documents?

Government Response: The documents referenced can be found on the Google Apps site.

12. Holloman AFB: Can AFCEC provide the actual reports for SS067 and SS069 from which the Data and Figures for the file [SS65_67_69.pdf] originated and more recent information?

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

13. Holloman AFB, Site SS059: Can AFCEC provide free product removal progress reports (from 2011 to present) that show not only product removed, but water levels, any analytical data, and any problems with the existing recovery system?

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

14. Cannon AFB, Site AT109: There is currently a letter from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) on the Google document server site as an Approval with Modifications for the Final Sampling and Analysis Plan (Field Sampling Plan/ Quality Assurance Project Plan) Remedial Action Construction at SWMU 109, Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. The referenced plan is not on the Google document server site. Please provide the referenced plan. Also clarify whether this plan has already been implemented or whether implementation is to be conducted under this PBR.

Government Response: All available documents have been posted to the Google Apps site. Implementation is to be conducted under this PBR.

15. Cannon AFB: After reviewing the histories for several sites under this PBR that have been approved by the NMED for Corrective Action Complete (CAC) With Controls, it is apparent that many of these sites currently represent no adverse or unacceptable risk to human health and the environment and show no waste or contamination remains in place. There appears to be no noted distinctions between how a site qualifies for CAC With Controls and CAC Without Controls based on the review of existing CAC Proposals. In order to clarify the regulator’s position on CAC please provide the following:

· NMED’s definition of what “With Controls” refers to since some sites have no engineered controls in place as part of corrective actions. An example of this is SWMU 2, Recovered Diesel Tank 108 at Cannon AFB, a UST that was removed and investigated. The site currently shows no unacceptable risk and is located in a parking lot.

· NMED’s definition of site conditions in order for the NMED to approve CAC Without Controls. An example of a site that has been approved for CAC Without Controls is SWMU 50, POL Tank No. 170 at Cannon AFB. Based on the same rationale and similar current site conditions that exist for SWMU 2 above, this site was proposed and approved for CAC Without Controls.

Government Response: NMED regulations and definitions can be found at the following link;

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/Common/regs_idx.html Submitted 4 Apr 2013:

Holloman AFB

The ESS for LF029 (April 2011) has been posted on the Google site. The ESS states, "previous site investigations included a PA/SI conducted in 1983; a RI Recommendations Report in 1992; a Decision Document in 1993; and a Supplemental RFI was completed in 2006". Please post these documents to the

Google site.

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

Also stated within the ESS, "the MEC Removal Action was scheduled to occur in July of 2012". Has this work been completed? Is there a report that summarizes the work? If so, please provide the report or any information currently available that documents the results of this work and any other post April 2008 report or information.

Government Response: No, the work has not been completed.

Submitted 4 Apr 2013:

1. Please provide access to the most current survey data, or the most recent ERPIMS submittals, for the Eight PA/SI Sites and Holloman AFB, which includes: SS501, TU502, TU503, TU504, TU505, SS507, DA508, and TA129.

Government Response: The most current survey data for the eight site PA/SI at Holloman AFB can be found on the Google Apps site.

2. SW127 is a concrete sand trap and leach fields that received waste water from the POL refueling truck wash rack at Facility 4095. An OWS enclosed in a concrete vault was installed in May 1991 to recover jet fuel which may have been released during wash rack operations. Please confirm that Cannon AFB Site SW127 includes only the leach fields, sand trap, and wash rack, and does not include the OWS.

Government Response: SWMU 127 consists of a sand trap, oil/water separator, and two leach fields that are part of the discharge conduit from a wash rack (where fuel tankers were cleaned before being staged in the adjacent parking area).

3. Per the government response comment response to Question #47, the government states that "During historical document research, North Wind located information it finds sufficient to complete a CACP for SWMU 71 and TU126 ... The CACPs are to be accomplished by North Wind." Please indicate whether CAC with Controls or CAC without Controls is being requested for SWMUs 71 and 126 in the CACP being developed by North Wind.

Government Response: A CAC without Controls is being requested for SWMUs 71 and 126 in the CACP being developed by North Wind.

4. In the government response to Question #47, the AF has stated that "soil sampling is still required at SWMU 70, including soil borings to 110ft. North Wind will ensure all data collected under this contract is available to all contractors if the data is received during the proposal period." Cannon AFB has indicated that the contractor, North Wind, is not able to complete the outstanding requests from the NMED (06 July 2010}. Please clarify what work will remain at the completion of the North Wind contract and at NTP for SWMU 70.

Government Response: Additional soil sampling is still required at SWMU 70, including soil borings to 110ft.

Submitted 4 Apr 2013:

QUESTION 1

The Final SOO is requesting Site Closure within 3 years for the following MMRP sites at Holloman:

• Missile Test Stands Area (XU853),

• Possible Firing Range (SR867),

• Former Bunker (FI857),

• Former Bombing Range (ML866),

• Able 51 Area (XU854),

• Former Small Arms Range (SR858), and

• 1000 Inch Range (SR863).

The definition of Site Closeout included in Attachment 5 of the SOO states:

“…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…”, During the CSE Phase II (Sky Research W9128F-07-D-0029, DO 0004) the potential for MEC (i.e., materials posing an explosive hazard) was documented within the boundary of the MRS at the sites listed above (in Table 1 of the SOO). The ability to achieve site closeout for these sites with MEC exceeds the capacity of this RFP based on our discussions with two EPA Region 6 representatives. The EPA will not issue site closures for MMRP sites containing potential MEC without inclusion of “Construction Support Language” in the ROD/DD. This is due to the uncertainty that all MEC has been removed from the site.

The EPA’s requirement to include “Construction Support Language” in ROD/DD is not consistent with unrestricted use and therefore does not meet the SOO SC definition. Based on this requirement, SC is not achievable at these sites. Please clarify either the definition of Site Closeout for the MMRP sites or change the MPO for these sites to either RI or RC. Further, please note that even if the MPO is changed to RC, the current timeframe in the SOO is unrealistic. A more realistic timeline for RC at the seven sites listed would be on the order of 5-7 years.

Additionally, current CSM in the CSE Phase II Report indicates that there is no potential for MEC, but this is not reflected in the conclusions or recommendations for the MRSs. In the answers to questions on this solicitation, it was suggested that the conclusions and recommendations were changed by the AF QA Panel.

It is also noted that the CSE Phase II recommended a change to the size of some of these MRSs, and in many cases they have not been fully bound (or the explanation for the bounding was not been provided in the report). A good example of this can be observed in the field results for SR867, where the boundary of the MRS includes as much small arms debris outside of it as it does within it and it is expected that the MD found inside the boundary would be found outside of it as well. A summary of the changes from the CSE Phase I to the CSE Phase II is shown below:

TS851: Former Skeet

Range

XU853: Missile Test

Stands Area

XU854: Able 51 Area

FI857: Former Bunker

SR858: Former Small

Arms Range

SR863: 1000 Inch Range

ML866: Former Bombing

Range

investigated; only anecdotal reports indicated presence, so thought not likely there)

SR867: Possible Firing

Range

Total:

1710.3

2059.1

* Acreage and conclusions are for the MRSs that were recommended for further munitions response action. This is generally the “a” MRS in the CSE Phase II report, but the SOO MRS names do not match, so the MRS names in the SOO were utilized.

Government Response: The SOO has been revised to reflect the following changes.

QUESTION 2

The Q&A that was provided by AFCEC (see below) conflicts with the Final SOO for the NM/AZ PBR, because while the Q&A requires the PBR contractor to renew the Holloman RCRA permits, the SOO is void of any such requirement. Furthermore, the Q&A referenced below provides conflicting answers regarding the expectations from the PBR contractor in renewing the Holloman RCRA permit, which includes sites not listed in the SOO. The sites not listed in the SOO, but included in the RCRA permit, have the potential of causing delays in obtaining the renewal of a RCRA permit issued by NMED, and would be beyond the control of the PBR contractor. Please provide clarification, and/or update the SOO to identify the specific PBR contractor requirements pertaining to updating the RCRA permits at the various installations included in this solicitation.

Government Response: The PBR Contractor will NOT be responsible for the development of any RCRA permit renewals for any of the installations, which would occur during the period of performance. The Contractor is only responsible for the sites listed in Table 1 of the Final SOO and Enclosure 1 of the Final RFP.

Additional questions for above referenced solicitation (submitted 21 Mar 2013):

From 26 February 2013 Q&A:

1. 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.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION:

The Cannon AFB RCRA permit expires on 11-13-2013. Given the renewal notifications and preparation process, is this 2013 permit renewal application already in progress by another party and therefore, will not be the responsibility of the new PBR contractor due to inadequate time to prepare for submittal?

Government Response: Yes, the permit is already in the renewal application phase; therefore the PBR contractor will not be responsible for it this year.

Similarly, the Holloman AFB RCRA permit expires on 2-24-2014. Please confirm whether the 2014 permit renewal is in progress by another party, or will it be the responsibility of the new PBR contractor.

Government Response: No, the PBR contractor will be responsible for the Holloman RCRA permit renewal.

Please confirm that the PBR contractor is not responsible for "applying and complying" with the RCRA permit for Corrective Action Sites included on the permit, but not included on the PBR contract.

Government Response: The Contractor is only responsible for the sites listed in Table 1 of the Final SOO and Enclosure 1 of the Final RFP.

Submitted 4 April 2013:

General

· Please clarify/confirm the Projected Date of Exercise for Holloman OT014 and SS013. The subCLIN structure in Attachment L-6 contains the projected date of exercise for each site. This document states that funds for both these sites are exercised “at award”. However, in the Air Force’s responses to questions (27 Mar 2013, question 2 on page 4) it says that the PBR contractor will not assume responsibility for these sites until 2014. What is the correct date for the subCLINs for these two sites?

Government Response: The subCLIN structure in Attachment L-6 is provided as an example. The contractor is responsible for preparing their own subCLIN structure using the guidance provided.

· Definition of SC for NM Sites – In the Additional Site Visit Q & As, 26 February 2013, Question 2 states that removal of a site on the RCRA permit by NMED is required to achieve SC. This requirement is unreasonable based on the timeframes for the MPO in the SOO, and the irregularity of NMED permit revisions; appears to be inconsistent with the language in the SOO, and is inconsistent with how SC is defined at other PBRs where work is being performed under a RCRA permit. We respectfully request that the Air Force re-evaluate the statement that SC is achieved when NMED removes the site from the permit.

· The Minimum Performance Standard for SC sites as stated in the SOO is “AF approval through the COR and Regulator approval (e.g., written regulator confirmation of acceptance of SC documentation for unrestricted use).” Based on the minimum performance standard, it would appear that once NMED accepts/approves a Corrective Action Completion Report (CACR) for NFA without Controls (or an equivalent document that indicates the site has meet the Unrestricted Use (UU)/Unlimited Exposure (UE) criteria) and the offeror submits a request to NMED to revise the permit that the minimum performance standard has been met.

· NMED is not consistent or timely in their amendment of the RCRA permit. In addition, based on historical documentation, NMED is not going to revise the permit every time they approve a CACR, Statement of Basis (SoB) or similar document for NFA without controls. I believe in 2010 they amended the permit to remove sites based on documentation approved in 2005 and 2006. It will be impossible to achieve a MPO of SC within two years if the offerors can only achieve SC when the permit is revised.

· For other PBRs in responses to questions, the Air Force has indicated that SC is achieved when the state grants NFA without controls and either a SoB or permit revision request is submitted to the state.

Government Response: Noted. Site Closeout is defined and signifies when the USAF has completed all active management and monitoring at an environmental cleanup site, no additional environmental cleanup funds will be expended at the site and the USAF has obtained regulatory concurrence. Site Closeout occurs when cleanup goals have been achieved in accordance with the final DD (if regulatory structure(s) require a DD for the site) that allow unrestricted use of the property (i.e., no further LTM, including institutional controls, is required) by both the regulator or Air Force and that all site decommissioning has been completed. Achieving Site Closeout may include, but not be limited to, the dismantling, removal, recycling, reclamation and/or disposal of all remedial activity systems and ancillary equipment above and underground to return the site to its natural state, well abandonment, and site restoration in accordance with Base and regulatory requirements. Note: Regulatory concurrence may include variations such as “no further active remediation”, “regulatory closure with restrictions”, “conditional site closure” or other functional equivalents. These variations would involve requirements for LTM and would therefore not allow for unrestricted use, and as such is not SC.

General Technical

Is a borrow source available on site for any of the bases? If so, what type of material is available?

Government Response: Would depend on the installation. As of yet, none have been identified for any of the installations.

Holloman AFB

· Will disposal of petroleum contaminated soils from various sites be allowed at the on-base land farm(s)?

Government Response: Would depend on the installation and site. As of yet, none of the installations have concurred with disposal at on-base land farm(s).

· TU503, TU506, TU518, TU515, and U904

· Will the current contractor develop a Final RFI, or will that be the responsibility of the PBR contractor?

Government Response: The current contractor will be responsible for developing the final RFI.

· Has the Air Force determined if the cVOCs in water and metals in soil are related to TU508 or SS018?

Government Response: Based off the conclusions of the December 2012, Draft RFI, SS018.

· The December 2012, Draft RFI mentions a new investigation for cVOCs. Is this investigation being performed. Are there any data available on this or resulting from this investigation?

Government Response: No.

· SS059, SS524, OW967, & OW968:

· Please post the Modeling and Recommendations report (FEB 02) noted in the 2009 DERA Evaluation Report to the Google site.

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

· Please clarify site SS524. Is SS524 composed of SS059, OW967 and OW968? Is it co-located with SS059, OW967 and OW968? Is it an alias for SS059?

Government Response: SS524 is an alias for SS059.

· OT032 and RW042 - Please post NMED comments on the Draft and/or Final Accelerated Corrective Measures (ACM) Completion Report for Sites OT032 and RW042.

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

· RW042

· The September 2012 Final ACM Completion Report recommends NFA based on the current data and site conditions (i.e., concrete cylinder in place). Does leaving the cylinder in place meet the Air Force’s SC definition for UU/UE?

· If the concrete cylinder must be removed to achieve SC, we respectfully request that the timeframe for achieving SC be increased from two years to four years. Given the reporting requirements and the prolonged NMED review times, it will not be possible to prepare and receive approval of the planning documents, excavate and dispose of the cylinder, and prepare and receive approval of the site closure documentation within two years.

Government Response: Refer to Enclosure 4 of the Final RFP package for the Air Force’s SC definition for UU/UE.

· SD027 - Please clarify/confirm the MPO for the PAD 9 Washrack Area, RAD Waste. The Air Force’s responses to the questions (Question 173) indicated that there is RAD waste and TPH above SSLs. Please confirm that the MPO of SC is only for the RAD portion of the site and the offerors are not required to achieve SC of the TPH.

Government Response: No, the PBR contractor will be required to remedy all contaminants.

· SS065 and SS069 - The Google site contains sample results data (2007) in the ‘03-07 SS65-67-69’ folder, but only sampling results not the whole report. Please post the report title is ‘RCRA Facility Assessment Confirmation Sampling Report. Sites SS-65, SS-67 and SS-69 (2007)’.

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

Luke

· RW002

· ADEQ comments letter (dated 4/11/2006) for the July 2005 Radiological Monitoring Summary Report for PSC RW002 is posted on the Google site, but the July 2005 Radiological Monitoring Summary Report was not found. Please post the actual report to the Google site.

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

· Please post the most recent Radiological Monitoring Summary Report (2012?).

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

· TU044 - Several remediation systems were historically operated at TU044. Were utilities available to operate these systems or was a generator used?

Government Response: There are no utilities or electrical outlets at the site and no communication in canyon. There are no operating remediation systems.

Submitted 5 Apr 2013:

The Government response to Question 20 from the Site Visit:

Question_Responses 011613 states: Question 20. Please confirm that AFCEC plans to follow the CERCLA process for all MMRP sites, with EPA as the regulator.

Government Response: Yes, AFCEC plans to follow the CERCLA process for all MMRP sites, with EPA as the regulator.

Please confirm that NMED will not regulate the MMRP sites and the revisions to the SOO are not driven by NMED review cycles.

Government Response: Refer to Question 20 above.

Submitted 5 Apr 2013:

. Please clarify/confirm the date for exercising Holloman SS017. The SOO Table 1 says 2nd quarter 2016 (January 2016). The subCLIN schedule in Attachment L-6 says 1st quarter FY14 (Oct 2013).

Government Response: The subCLIN structure in Attachment L-6 is provided as an example. The contractor is responsible for preparing their own subCLIN structure using the guidance provided.

. Please post the following documents to the Google site:

1. Woodward Clyde and Associates , October 1993 Draft RCRA Facility Investigation Report for SWMUs 229 & 230 Holloman AFB , New Mexico

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

2. Nationview/Bhate JV III. July 2011, Basewide Background Study, Holloman AFB New Mexico

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

3. NMED, December 28, 2011, Conditional Approval Basewide Background Study Report, Holloman AFB , EPA ID# NM 6572124422 (HWB-HAFB-09-004)

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

4. Decision Document for SD027 and OT038 (Holloman AFB)

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

5. RCRA Facility Assessment Confirmation Sampling Report, SS-65, SS-67 and SS-69

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

6. Final Accelerated Corrective Measures Completion Report for Site SS-13

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

7. NMED Comments on Bhate September 2012 Final Accelerated Corrective Measures Completion Report For Site OT-32 and RW-42 conclusions and recommendations. (Holloman AFB)

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

8. SD-027 Groundwater Monitoring Report March 2013 (Holloman AFB)

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

9. Most recent (2008-2013) Reports letters and documents for SD-027, OT-37, OT-38, SS-065, SS-069. (Holloman AFB)

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

10. Reports Letters Documents for LF-029 -Old Army Landfill (Holloman AFB)

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

11. Bhate Environmental Associates Inc. November 2003. Work Plan for Voluntary Corrective MeasuresT-38 Test Cell Fuel Spill Site, Holloman Air Force Base, NM

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

12. Bhate Environmental Associates Inc. February 2005. Revised Work Plan for Voluntary Corrective MeasuresT-38 Test Cell Fuel Spill Site, Holloman Air Force Base, NM

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

Submitted 8 Apr 2013:

General (New Mexico)

1. For sites requiring Long Term Monitoring that cannot achieve SC within the POP, in New Mexico, what frequency of LTM sampling is required (quarterly, semi-annual, annual)?

Government Response: Refer to the requirements identified in Table 1 of the SOO.

HAFB

2. Has the contractor submitted the MMRP CSE Phase II Report for Holloman AFB to USEPA for review/comment and/or approval? If so, when is that expected to occur?

Government Response: The document is still in draft /draft final stage, 2014.

3. The Interim Measures (IM) performed by Shaw at HAFB for the UST sites (TU503, 505 506, 508, 515 and 518) were implemented during their RFI. At least one of those sites will require more substantive remediation for the next step and likely risk assessment approach, which requires a protracted regulatory review. Two other sites require the TPH release to be “separated” from identified VOC impact. As noted previously, bidders will likely be unable to achieve the MPO in the specified duration. Will AFCEC consider changing the MPO on these sites to SC in 6 years?

Government Response: No, the MPO will remain as stated.

4. HAFB - SD027 - The site visit slides for SD027 indicated there was an Accelerated Corrective Measure (ACM) investigation conducted in 2010/2011, and that LTM is currently being conducted at the site. Was a Draft or Final ACM Report prepared and, if so, was it accepted by NMED? Was a LTM Work Plan prepared? How long has the LTM been conducted and at what frequency? Can AFCEC please post those documents to the website if available.

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

KAFB

5. As a follow up per Response to Q&A #17 dated 16 January 2013, in reference to the Site Investigation Work Plan for Kirtland Site CG-570 (EOD Hill), what is the schedule of submittal to NMED for the Site Investigation Work Plan?

Government Response: The SI work plan for site CG-570 is currently in staffing in order to obtain KAFB commander signature, at which point it will be sent to NMED for review and approval.

Submitted 8 Apr 2013:

1. The RFP SF33 shows 120 days for proposal validity. RFP Section L (L.3.5) Validity Statement lists 180 days. Which time frame should Offerors use?

Government Response: 180 days.

2. In Section 1.2 of Attachment 1 it states that 5-year reviews will be performed at Kirtland in 2015, and at Cannon, Holloman, and Luke AFBs in 2017. Please list the sites that will be included in each of these five year reviews.

Government Response: The contractor will only be responsible for the recommendations associated with the sites identified in the SOO.

3. On Page 4, the SOO states that contractor’s shall develop an OES for sites identified in Table 1 of the SOO that have an approved DD prior to, or during the POP, but do not achieve SC. Please clarify that AFCEC requires contractors to develop an OES Plan but not implement an OES for Table 1 sites with a MPO of RIP or RC (i.e., not OES).

Government Response: Correct.

4. For sites that have a stated MPO of RIP or RC during the POP, please confirm if AFCEC requires an OES Plan to be developed and submitted within one year of NTP or within one year of achieving the stated MPO of RIP or RC.

Government Response: AFCEC requires an OES Plan to be developed and submitted within the course of the MPO POP.

5. In the answer to question 5 in the last round of Q&A (QA_2Apr2013), AFCEC directed Offerors to follow the RFP for the order in which to list the sites in the Technical Approach section. Can Offerors follow RFP, Attachment 1E1 [SOO Enclosure 1 Site List], for sequencing the 106 sites, which lists sites by Air Force Base or, are Offerors directed to follow RFP, Section B for site sequencing?

Government Response: AFCEC has no preference to site sequencing.

6. Should Offerors arrange Volume Section tabs based on Section L, Table 2-2, p. 4 of 23 or L.5.1-L.5.9? (For example, Volume III – Past Performance – TAB 1: 2.3.7, 2.3.8, 2.3.9 Volume Organization; TAB 2: 5.2 Standard Proposal Information; TAB 3: 5.3 Past Performance Summary, etc.) If this is correct, what information should Offeror’s include within TAB 2: Standard Proposal Information? The Table of Contents, List of Tables/Figures, and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms are already listed under Volume Organization, L.5.1 on p. 17 of 23.

Government Response: Tabs should be arranged IAW Sec L, Table 2-2.

7. OW967 and OW968. The SOO says that they will be awarded 2nd quarter 2015. The subCLIN structure says the PBR contractor gets them "At Award". Which document is correct?

Government Response: Refer to the SOO for obligation timeframes. The subCLIN structure provided in Section L is guidance only. It is the responsibility of the bidding contractors to provide their versions of the subCLIN Structure and MPS according to the obligation timeframes defined in the SOO.

Submitted 8 Apr 2013:

Cannon AFB, TS835 --Former Skeet Range (VCA) -The CSE Phase I Report indicates that a portion of the eastem skeet range fan (approximately 3.6 acres) is located off the CAFB installation on private property owned by the Rajen…