NM-AZ_PBR_Q As_03-27-13.doc

ADDITIONAL NM-AZ PBR QUESTIONS – 27 MAR 2013

NM-AZ PBR Questions Submitted March 19, 2013 Holloman AFB – Site-Specific

1. Former Skeet Range (TS851) – The CSE Phase II Draft Report indicates that a portion of the eastern skeet range fan is occupied by a petroleum contaminated soil remediation area. Has the total MRA acreage for TS851 been reduced due to the presence of this remediation area and if so what is the total revised acreage? If the MRA has not been reduced, is the contractor responsible for this area?

Government Response: It is anticipated (based on MRSPP QA Panel meeting) total acreage for MRA 851 may increase and the area subdivided into multiple sites. The petroleum portion is anticipated to be MRS TS851b encompassing 0.3 acres and recommended for administrative closure under the MMRP as this portion is reportedly part of an existing IRP investigation.

2. Former Small Arms Range (SR858) - The CSE Phase II Draft Report identifies a 3.2 acre area located 400 ft away from the SAR that has no relationship to the activities of the Former SAR. Is this area to be included in the approach for SR858?

Government Response: It is anticipated (based on MRSPP QA Panel meeting) that at a minimum a new subdivision (e.g., MRS SR858a - if not an entirely new MRA) covering this non-contiguous area north of the SAR (MRA 858) shall be created. This non-contiguous area is identified as having had a different use as such the anticipated/suspected munitions type and munitions constituents may be different resulting in the approach to address hazards in order to obtain objective different from MRS SR858. .

3. 1000-Inch Range (SR863) - The CSE Phase II Draft Report identifies a 0.24 acre area located 1,000 ft away from the 1000-Inch Range that has no relationship to the activities of the Range. Is this area to be included in the approach for SR863?

Government Response: It is anticipated (based on MRSPP QA Panel meeting) that the area referenced is associated with operational training activities and as such not eligible for the MMRP.

4. Poorman Range (SR864) - The CSE Phase II Draft Report indicates that the 5.4 acre Poorman Range might need to be enlarged to 22.8 acres to address other SAR debris and also potential MEC items that would not be associated with machine gun firing at the Poorman Range. Is the MRS 22.8 acres or 5.4 acres?

Government Response: It is anticipated (based on MRSPP QA Panel meeting) that MRA 864 and associated (single site) MRS SR864 total acreage may be increased to 22.8 acres, from the currently reported 5.4 acres, due to surface munitions debris.

5. Possible Firing Range (SR867) - The CSE Phase II Draft Report indicates that the 28.4 acre Possible Firing Range might need to be enlarged to 449 acres because of the discovery of numerous 0.50-caliber projectiles, rocket parts, possible craters, and misc MD. In fact, the Report identified additional potential MEC items beyond the 449-acre boundaries. Please define the MRS boundaries for SR867.

Government Response: It is anticipated (based on MRSPP QA Panel meeting) that MRA 867 and associated (single site) MRS SR867 total acreage may be increased to an anticipated 449.2 acres, from the currently reported 28.4 acres, due to surface munitions debris.

6. Possible Firing Range (SR867), Former Bunker (FI857), Former Bombing Range (ML866), and Able 51 Area (XU854) - SC is the minimum performance objective listed for these sites. EPA Region 6 will not likely accept SC for an MMRP site as there will always be a potential for residual subsurface hazards (unless sifting of all soils to 4 ft bgs is performed, which cannot be completed with the Government’s ROM) as the ability to remove MEC is limited to instrument detectability. Therefore, LUCs will be required and this does not meet the SOO requirement of SC. Please reconcile the minimum performance objective with the fact that EPA Region 6 will likely not approve an unrestricted closure for this site.

Government Response: Noted, SC is the minimum performance objective.

7. Possible Firing Range (SR867), Missile Test Stands Area (XU863), Former Bunker (FI857), Former Bombing Range (ML866), and Able 51 Area (XU854) – EPA Headquarters has promulgated that removal actions under 40 CFR 300.415 are only to be performed if the action at a site is time critical and that MMRP sites are, in general, to follow the remedial investigation process under 40 CFR 300.420 unless there are receptors at the site with uncontrolled hazards/risks. As this is not the case for any of these sites, they would fall under the 40 CFR 300.420 (RI/FS/PP/DD/RA) process. This process cannot be completed in three (3) years. Please revise either the minimum performance requirements or the time to meet the performance requirements.

Government Response: Noted, please refer to the SOO for the minimum performance requirements associated with each site.

8. Debris Field (RR869) – The CSE Phase II interchanges which MRS is RR869 and which is RR869a. Only RR869 is included in the SOO. It is our assumption that the RI performance objectives in the SOO relates to the 3.5 acre MRS recommended for further action under the MMRP and not the 0.1 acre MRS excluded from the MMRP that is being evaluated under the IRP. Is this a correct assumption?

Government Response: Correct assumption (based on MRSPP QA Panel meeting), approximately 3.5 acres recommended for further munitions response action.

9. Debris Field (RR869) – Are there field restrictions associated with the White Sands Pupfish? If so, what are they?

Government Response: Refer to Cooperative Agreement for Protection and Maintenance of White Sands Pupfish between U.S. Army - White Sands Missile Range U.S. Air Force - Holloman Air Force Base

National Park Service - White Sands National Monument U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 1 May 2006.

10. Missile Test Stands Area (XU863) - Please confirm that SC is the minimum performance objective. During the CSE Phase II, no subsurface characterization or groundwater monitoring (or sampling of any type associated with the fuel spill) was performed. EPA Region 6 will not accept SC for an MMRP site as subsurface hazards are present and there will always be a potential for residual hazards as the ability to remove MEC is limited to instrument detectability. Therefore, LUCs will be required. It appears that an RI would be the next logical step to determine the nature and extent of MEC and MC in the subsurface and delineate the fuel spill site. The maximum performance objective achievable is RC. Please confirm the minimum performance objective.

Govt Response: SC is the minimum performance objective under the MMRP. Refer to Item 13 regarding fuel spill.

11. Missile Test Stands Area (XU863) - Will archaeological support be required in areas eligible for inclusion under NRHP?

Government Response: Yes, archaeological support will be required in areas eligible for inclusion under NRHP.

12. Missile Test Stands Area (XU863) - Will the potential fuel release be regulated by EPA or NMED?

Government Response: The potential fuel release would be regulated by NMED.

13. Missile Test Stands Area (XU863) - There is an uncharacterized fuel spill indicated in the CSE Phase II for XU853. Please clarify if this fuel spill will be included in the XU853 site? Please note that the minimum performance objective for XU852 is SC. By including the fuel spill of unknown nature and extent in the XU853 site, the minimum performance objective will be impacted.

Government Response: No, the fuel spill is not included under the MMRP.

14. Former Bunker (FI857) - The CSE Phase II indicates that FI857 is a 19.8 acre site recommended for NFA and FI857a is a 0.8 acre site recommended for further military munitions response actions. Only FI857 is included in the SOO. It is our assumption that the SC performance objective in the SOO relates to the 0.8 acre MRS recommended for further action under the MMRP and not the 19.8 acre MRS recommended for NFA. Is this a correct assumption?

Government Response: Correct assumption (based on MRSPP QA Panel meeting), approximately 0.8 acres recommended for further munitions response action.

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

Submitted 20 Mar 2013

1) Proposal is requesting conceptual-type performance models within already tight page constraints, can font size requirements be waived for graphics as long as they remain legible?

Government Response: The font size requirement of 10 pt cannot be waived.

2) Proposal is requesting information best provided in tables for reference purposes, with the tight page constraints can the condensed font requirements be waived for tables as long as they remain 10 point and legible; can Arial Narrow be used within tables?

Government Response: Arial Narrow, font size 10 pt, can be used within tables and graphics ONLY.

Submitted 22 Mar 2013:

Per Sec L, 2.3.11.6, the 5 pgs of PDs do not count against the page limit, so does that allow us to use the 5-pg limit listed in Table 2.2 for additional information?

Government Response: No, you cannot use any blank space within stated page limits for additional information not pertaining to that particular section as cross-referencing is not allowed.

NM-AZ Draft RFP Questions

Submitted 26 Mar 2013:

1. Section L, Table 2-2, L.4.4 - Technical Risk; Section M.001.A and M.002.A Table 2-2 lists Section 4.4 as a "Technical Risk Submission", which appears to be a tabbed/separate section that is to discuss all aspects of risk

(program level, project level, technical approach, subfactors). Section L.4.4 shows "Technical Risk" and directs offerors to "Address Technical Risk associated with those aspects in each Subfactor ...," which indicates that the risk discussion is not a specific tabbed section of the proposal, but discussion to be interwoven within each technical subfactor, as well as the executive summary. Please clarify. Does the Government require risk discussion to be included in a tabbed section 4.4 or, within the subfactors and executive summary?

Govt Response: Technical Risk discussion is to be included under Tab 4.4 and within each Subfactor as required.

2. Section M.001.A indicates that the Government will select the best overall offer, based on upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. Technical Risk / Submission is not included in M002.A Evaluation Factors and Subfactors; however, on page 5, Subfactor 1.2: Plan B Contingency Approach, addresses "...risks associated with the project and proposed technical approach, inclusive of potential system failures, (e.g., Plan B)..." How will the Government evaluate and score Technical Risk as described in

Table 2-2 and L.4.4?

Govt Response: Refer to Section M.

Questions on Section L and Attachment L-6:

Submitted 20 Mar 2013:

1) In Sections L and M, one of the key positions required is "UXO Specialist." Is this equivalent to the "UXO Supervisor – Senior" in Attachment 4?

Government Response: Yes, “UXO Specialist” in Sections L and M is equivalent to “UXO Supervisor – Senior” in RFP Attachment 4.

Submitted 21 Mar 2013/Received 22 Mar 2013:

1) Attachment L-6, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structures/Milestone Payment Schedules (MPS)/Integrated Master Schedules (IMS) Guidance- page 2 of 24, 2nd to last paragraph states: "The final SubCLIN milestone for each site must be a minimum of 20% of the total SubCLIN cost." However, Section L, page 21 of 23 section 2.g. states: "The final SubCLIN milestone for each site must be a minimum of 25% of the total SubCLIN cost." Please clarify what percentage the final SubCLIN milestone must be.

Government Response: The final SubCLIN milestone must be 20%. Section L has been corrected.

2) Can bidders subdivide SubCLINS presented by the AF in Attachment L-6 in the proposed IMS?

Government Response: Yes, bidders may subdivide the SubCLINS.

3) Can SubCLINs have relationship other than Finish-Start; in other words, can SubCLINs have overlapping duration?

Government Response: No, the SubCLINs may not have overlapping duration.

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.

HAFB Site Questions per the 26 Feb 2013 SOO, and March data postings:

2 According to the information provided in the 26 Feb 2013 "Questions and Responses", Question 83 - the transition of work table indicates sites SS013 and OT014 are under contract to Nationview to complete the ACM by 12/30/14. Based on this, how will the awarded contractor achieve SC in 2 years of award if they don't take over the sites until late 2014.

Government Response: SC is to be achieved at Sites SS-13 and OT014 within 2 years of award of this Option which coincides with a bona fide need. The bona fide need to achieve SC for these 2 sites doesn’t become valid until 2014 when the current TO ends.

3 Is site SS069 currently under contract? Site SS069 was listed as being under contract by an environmental contractor in the AF PBR slides but not listed on the 26 Feb 2013 "Questions and Responses", Question 83 transition table, as a transition site.

Government Response: The presentation is incorrect.

4 In the 26 Feb 2013 "Questions and Responses", Question 83, does the final outcome for "ACM" include the "ACM Report", please clarify.

Government Response: Yes, the ACM Report is the document required to finalize ACM activities and which adequately describes the activities which were completed at the site.

5 Was the site 20K ODU Expanded Closure Plan (Nationview 2/2012) approved by NMED and implemented by Nationview? Analytical data provided by AFCEC on 3/7/13 is for perchlorate in soil only and groundwater monitoring data. The expanded closure plan indicates more soil sampling and analysis are required for the site. Is a summary report of the activities conducted at the 20K ODU by Nationview in August 2012 available, so that current site status can be determined for costing.

Government Response: All available documentation has been uploaded to the Google Site.

6 Based on the December 2012 RFI report, DRO soil contamination from former UST TU515 likely extends an unknown distance underneath Building 889. Will demolition of Building 889 be under this PBR contract, or are there plans for it to be demolished under another contract, in order to achieve SC5?

Government Response: There are no plans to demolish the building.

Cannon AFB

7 At AT-109, is there a contractor that is currently completing the field work in the approved work plan dated June 1, 2012? If so what portion has been completed and is there any data available?

Government Response: All available documentation has been uploaded to the Google site.

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.

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.

Questions regarding the Performance-Based Remediation (PBR) at Cannon AFB, NM; Holloman AFB, NM, Kirtland AFB, NM &Luke AFB, AZ

Submitted March 21, 2013

1) For the Technical subfactors 1.1 (Technical Approach) and 1.2 (Plan B Contingency Approach), the page limit (Section L, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization) is given as “80 front and back”. Does this mean that 80 pages of paper are allowed with printing on both sides (a total of 160 pages of text), or does it mean that only 40 pages of paper are allowed (80 pages of text if printed front and back)?

Govt Response: Refer to Question # 109 a.i of the Draft RFP Q&A document as well as Section L.

2) The contingency approach (Plan B) for each site might be more easily understood if they were included in a discussion of that site, rather than grouped as a separate section. Will that alternative for presenting the information be allowed?

Government Response: No, that alternative is not pursuant to Sections L & M of this acquisition, or any other acquisition of this nature; therefore Sections L & M need to be followed.

3) In Section L, Table 2.2 (Proposal Organization), some of the information for the page limits on Volume III is confusing. It shows the overall page count for that volume is limited to 5 pages, but four of the sections in this volume (Standard Proposal Information, Past Performance Summary, Past Performance Information Sheets, and Client Authorization Letters) are shown as unlimited pages, and two others (Organizational Structure Change History and Past Performance Questionnaires) are shown as 5 pages each. Please clarify the page limit for this volume and each of the sections.

Government Response: Refer to corrected Section L.

4) Some of the documents in the Google library have titles that include the year the document was produced but others do not. Please add the year the document was produced to all document titles.

Government Response: Not all document titles include the year in which they were produced; to do so now will be considered revising an official document and cannot occur. The year in which the document was produced can be found within the text pages of the document itself.

5) The Nitrate Characterization Study Work Plan for Holloman Air Force Base (AFB) dated January 2012 includes both a background study and a source area investigation. The source area investigation includes six areas. Three of them (OT-37, OT-38 and SS-39) are included in the list of IRP sites in the PBR RFP. The other three (OT-04, ST-36 and LF-58) are not. In addition, the background study is to take place northeast of the six source area sites.

For purposes of our proposal, are we supposed to include implementing the entire Work Plan or just the three sites?

Government Response: Refer to Table 1 of the Final SOO and Enclosure 1 of the Final RFP.

If we are not going to implement the entire Work Plan, who is going to take responsibility for writing the post-field work Nitrate Characterization Study Report?

Government Response: this report is to provide background information only.

If our involvement is more than merely supplying data to the authors of the Report, what does our involvement consist of?

Government Response: The PBR contractor will be held accountable for the MPOs identified in Table 1 of the Final SOO.

6) Landfill 29 (LF029) at Holloman AFB is identified as an IRP site. However, the Explosives Safety Submission, Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal Action document dated April 2011 includes (Section 1.5.3) “Selected Munitions Response Actions”. Have these been completed or are they included in this scope of work? If the latter, why is this classified as an IRP site and not an MMRP site?

Govt Response: Refer to question # 87 of the Site Visit Questions and Responses dated 16 Jan 2013.

7) For Cannon AFB, please provide the date of publication of the URS Technical Memorandum “Final Recommendations for Sampling and Analysis” for four sites, which include three in the current RFP: Former AGE Dispatch Facility spills (SS501), POL Yard Refueling Area (SS507), and Surface Disposal Area (DA508). Have the recommended activities been approved? Is so, when? Have they been implemented? If so, when and on what schedule? What were the results? Are there any required follow up actions? What is the current status of each of the sites?

Govt Response: Refer to the Final Recommendations for Sampling and Analysis on the Google Site.

8) For Cannon AFB, NMED letter 7.22.10 refers to two sites: SWMU 48a (Site ST-26) and AOC 36. Neither of these appears to be included in the list of sites in the RFP. Why is this document included?

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.

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

Submitted March 20, 2013

General:

1. In Response to Question 170 (as well as various others), on the Q&A dated 26 February 2013, the government recognized that “a significant number of sites included in this PBR are in the investigation stage and available data may be limited. However, the pertinent information is expected to provide enough site specific data in order for the bidding contractors to accurately propose on a FFP requirement within the stated period of performance”. Also, in the Q&A, contractors have indicated that they have provided reports to the Air Force clients but these documents have not yet been uploaded. Is there a plan from the Government to address potential Conflict of Interest that exists, or is created, for those Contractors presently engaged at a site, performing work and providing services of which their documents have not been uploaded? In addition to the OCI issues that ongoing contracts and missing documents may create, can the Air Force comment on how it will resolve apparent or alleged OCI issues to avoid and prevent Task Order award protests?

Government Response: All potential OCI issues have been addressed with the contractors currently performing work at any of the installations affiliated with the NM-AZ PBR. As of 22 March 2013, all data has been uploaded to the Google Site. In the event that further data, regardless of how raw it may be, will be provided to AFCEC who in turn will upload the data to the Google Site.

KAFB:

2. All files in the folder view in Google Docs in the Kirtland FY13 folder start with the AR number. However, a search for "EOD Hill" results in documents not visible in folder view. These include the "eod_Final SI_perchlorate_work_plan_2012" which is the 2012 Work Plan. The Question 252 Government Response is "the most recent NOD and most recent work plan have been provided already, and contain all the relevant data/information." The most recent NOD does not appear under folder view or using the search option using key words. Please provide the file name for the most recent (3rd) NOD.

Government Response: All available documentation has been uploaded to the Google Site. Refer to Question # 8 of the Draft RFP questions document as well.

3. Has KAFB ever used dispute resolution with the NMED to resolve NODs? If so, what was the outcome?

Government Response: There has not been any “formal” dispute resolution incorporating a mediator/mitigator or a formally recorded meeting. Typically Kirtland tries to address NODs through "technical team" meetings, developing an agreed upon list of acceptable responses to the NOD, then transmitting through formal documentation one entity to another, which has been successful about 40-50% of the time.

For HAFB, Site OD20K:

4. Please provide the Holloman AR-1505 Final Phase I Operational Range Assessment (ORA) Report for EOD Proficiency Range, M203 Grenade Range, and 20,000-Pound Open Detonation Unit dated 01-Aug-2011.

Government Response: Refer to question # 2 above.

5. AR-1508 NMED NOD response to the Expanded Closure Plan for OD-20K outlines the deficiencies and requests a revised Amended Plan no later than 31-Oct-2011. Was a revised plan submitted, and if so can it be posted to the google site? Furthermore, if submitted, has NMED responded to the revised plan?

Government Response: Refer to question # 2 above.

6. There are three sample maps shown in the OD-20K folder on the google dated 04- and 05-09-2012 (uploaded on 7 Mar 2013). Are these part of a larger report? If so, please upload entire report. If not, please advise as to what prompted this sampling.

Government Response: Refer to question # 2 above.

7. Map entitled 20K Soil Sample Locations identifies many Historical Sampling Locations. Please provide the results of this historical sampling.

Government Response: Refer to question # 2 above.

8. AR-1579 letter dated 15-Apr-2011 from HAFB to NMED identifies nitroglycerin results of 1st Quarter sampling event at OD-20K. Could you please provide any associated laboratory reports or sampling maps for the data presented in the letter?

Government Response: Refer to question # 2 above.

9. AR-1579 letter dated 15-Apr-2011 from HAFB to NMED indicates that HAFB elected to perform additional sampling. Has the additional sampling been performed and results available?

Government Response: Refer to question # 2 above.

10. Please post an electronic copy of the Open Detonation Unit Permit NM6572124422-OD.

Government Response: Refer to question # 2 above.

11. HAFB- SR867: Based on the information contained in the Draft Holloman AFB MMRP CSE Phase II Report, which was posted on the website 14 March, the MPO (SC within 3 years) for SR867 is not considered reasonable for the time frame allowed. Please indicate what the revised MPO expectation will be for SR867.

Government Response: The MPO for these sites will remain as SC.

Additional Draft RFP Questions Submitted March 22, 2013:

1) There have been several different versions of the various parts of the draft RFP that have been released. When releasing a new version, is it possible to use something (such as italics or red or BOLD) to indicate the portions that have changed since the previous version?

Government Response: If any further revised drafts of RFP attachments are posted, from here until the posting of the final RFP on 28 Mar 2013, we will highlight the changes in yellow. We cannot highlight changes to the actual draft RFP document.

2) In Part 1 Section B of the latest version of the draft RFP, the list of sites includes the following sequence:

Item 0053: TU904 – Bldg 1194

Item 0054: TU515 – Bldg 889

Item 0055: TU503 – Building 221

Item 0056: TU506 – Building 901

Item 0057: TU508 – Building 298

Item 0058: TU518 – UST 7003 In attachment L-6, the comparable sequence is as follows:

Item 0053: TU503 – Building 221

Item 0054: TU506 – Building 901

Item 0055: TU508 – Building 298

Item 0056: TU515 – Building 889

Item 0057: TU518 – UST 7003

Item 0058: TU904 – Building 1194

Please indicate which sequence we are to follow.

Government Response: For the sequencing of the sites/CLINs, always follow the RFP Schedule B.

Attachment L-6 is just provided as a sample.