NM-AZ_PBR_Site_Visit_Questions_Responses_011613.doc

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

Site Visit Questions and Responses

16 January 2013

Question 1. In restricted areas along the flight line at Holloman AFB, which require escorts, will the Air Force supply escorts for extended periods of time (over 8 hours per day) including holidays and weekends?

Government Response: The HAFB Restoration government staff hours are between 0630-1700, Monday through Friday and they are allowed to have a compressed work schedule that allows one day off per pay period. The work on the flight line may be restricted by the flying schedule. The work at the test track area may be restricted by the test schedule.

Question 2. At Holloman AFB can a contractor working extended periods within the flight line get a security line badge so Air Force escorts are not required?

Government Response: There may be certain restrictions to flightline areas due to flying schedules.

Question 3. Please confirm the NAICS code and small business set-aside status applicable to this contract.

Government Response: The NAICS code is 562910 (500 Employees) – Environmental Remediation Services. The NM-AZ PBR is a 100% small business set-aside.

Question 4. As stated during the site visits, 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 documents to support proposal preparation. We understand that Kirtland AFB has their AR/IR database available online, while Cannon AFB indicated that they would make their AR/IR available via CD/DVD.

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/ The Cannon AFB AR/IR can be obtained at the address below;

Clovis-Carver Public Library

701 N Main Street

Clovis, NM 88101

(575) 769-7840

Question 5. Clarify property ownership of the Waterdog site for Luke AFB, and provide any details related to access issues (legal or physical) and lack of services at the Waterdog site.

Government Response: The U.S. Forest Service owns the land where Waterdog is located. The site is remote and located on 26 acres of land on the east side of Apache Lake in Maricopa County, Arizona approximately 0.5-mile west of Arizona Highway 88 (Apache Trail). It is accessible, however getting out to the site requires driving on a narrow steeply inclined road that is gravel at times. Regarding access to the site, there is an access gate, for which the Luke RPM has keys. There are no utilities or electrical outlets at the site and no communication in canyon. There are no operating remediation systems.

Question 6. Are there access issues related to the Kirtland AFB MMRP sites located on the east side of the installation (legal or physical)?

Government Response: No, there are no access issues related to the Kirtland AFB MMRP sites located on the east side of the installation.

Question 7. Can maps of the site locations for each installation be provided at a larger scale than those provided in the PowerPoint presentations?

Government Response: No, no larger scale maps of the site locations for each installation are to be provided.

Question 8. Will the New Mexico-Arizona group PBR SharePoint come back online, or will AFCEC be utilizing the Google document server link provided on December 12?

Government Response:

AFCEC will be utilizing the Google document server link below; https://sites.google.com/a/afcecpbrshare.org/nm-az-group-fy13-pbr/ Question 9. 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: For the purposes of this solicitation utilize the regulatory review schedules posted on the respective websites for New Mexico Environment Department and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Question 10. The Pre-Proposal Conference slides (Pre-Proposal Presentation_PKJ_Final_30 Nov, slide 3) shows that 107 sites are included in this PBR. However, there are 109 sites listed in the RFI documents (reference NM-AZ_PBR_SOO_Enc_1_-_FA8903-12-R-0050 in the RFI). Please clarify which number is correct and which sites have been deleted from the PBR if the correct number of sites is 107?

Government Response: The correct number of sites for this solicitation is one hundred and ten (110) sites. Refer to NM-AZ_PBR_SOO_Enc_1_-_FA8903-12-R-0050 in the RFP.

Question 11. Because of the size of this procurement, the total NM Gross receipts tax could be significant. Will AFCEC provide any direction to contractors in the estimation of NM Gross receipts tax? The current state guidance makes it difficult to determine if labor outside the state is subject to tax and at what rate. Furthermore, the fact that each locality within New Mexico will have a different tax rate. Recent audit experience with the State Taxation and Revenue Department would suggest some direction be provided by the government to “level the field” with regard to the estimation of these costs.

Government Response: The state of New Mexico imposes a Gross Receipts Tax instead of a Sales Tax. However, the effect on the consumer is generally the same as if it were a sales tax. The New Mexico State Taxation and Revenue Department states:

New Mexico does not have a sales tax. It has a gross receipts tax instead. This tax is imposed on persons engaged in business in New Mexico. In almost every case, the person engaged in business passes the tax to the consumer either separately stated or as part of the selling price. Only in its effect on the buyer does the gross receipts tax resemble a sales tax. The gross receipts tax rate varies throughout the state from 5.125% to 8.8675% depending on the location of the business.

More information on application and rates can be found at the link below;

http://www.taxrates.com/blog/2012/05/17/new-mexico-gross-receipts-tax-rate-changes-july-2012/ Question 12. Who will be responsible for paying the document review fees listed in 20.4.2.1 Tables 4 and 5 to the NMED?

Government Response: The installation will be responsible for paying the document review fees.

Question 13. Will the contractor be able to submit documents directly to the NMED for review? If not, please describe the required Air Force review, approval and submittal process and schedule?

Government Response: No, the contractors will not be allowed to submit documents directly to NMED for review. Refer to RFP for description of the required Air Force review, approval and submittal process and schedule.

Question 14. When will AFCEC provide the governing installation-specific RCRA permits for Kirtland AFB, Cannon AFB, and Holloman AFB?

Government Response: The governing installation-specific RCRA permits for Kirtland AFB, Cannon AFB, and Holloman AFB can be found at the Google document server link below; https://sites.google.com/a/afcecpbrshare.org/nm-az-group-fy13-pbr/ Question 15. Are Kirtland sites CW-571, OT-572, OT-573, and SS-575 included on the Kirtland AFB RCRA Permit? If not, will they be added in the future?

Government Response: The sites mentioned above are not currently on the Kirtland AFB RCRA Permit. They will be added to the permit.

Question 16. During the site walk, one of the Air Force representatives commented that draft reports for work that is currently in progress on sites that are part of NM/AZ PBR were going to be specifically excluded from being released until after the proposals for this procurement are submitted. Please clarify the intent of that comment, specifically because it would appear to provide a clear competitive advantage to the firm that prepared the draft report(s).

Government Response: The draft reports for work that is currently in progress on sites that are part of NM-AZ PBR will be posted to the Google document server link below; https://sites.google.com/a/afcecpbrshare.org/nm-az-group-fy13-pbr/ Question 17. When will the Site Investigation Work Plan for Kirtland Site CG-570 (EOD Hill) be submitted to NMED for review and approval? Has a copy of the plan been posted on AFCEC’s FTP site?

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. A copy of the SI work plan and the appendix will be posted on the AFCEC FTP site.

Question 18. Please confirm whether or not Luke AFB sites FT-007 and FT-007E are still active fire training areas.

Government Response: No, Luke AFB sites FT-007 and FT-007E are not active fire training areas. Luke AFB sites FT-007 and FT-007E were active from 1973 until 1989.

Question 19. Please confirm whether the Skeet Range adjacent to/atop Luke AFB site LF-025 is still active.

Government Response: Yes, the Skeet Range adjacent to/atop Luke AFB site LF-025 is still active. Portions of LF025 are located immediately downrange of the base skeet shooting range which is still active.

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.

Question 21. Who will be responsible for ongoing utility costs for active remediation systems?

Government Response: The installation will be responsible for ongoing utility costs for active remediation systems.

Question 22. Who will be responsible for utility installation costs related to new/upgraded remedial systems?

Government Response: The contractor will be responsible for utility installation costs related to new/upgraded remedial systems. The installation will be responsible for costs associated with the use of the utility.

Question 23. How will existing site data (collected by current contractors) that is not provided in AFCEC web site be made available to bidders in a timely manner so that everyone has access to the same information?

Government Response: All pertinent documents will be uploaded by the final RFP release. Recognize 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. All draft reports and existing site data for work that is currently in progress on sites that are part of NM-AZ PBR will be posted to the Google document server link below; https://sites.google.com/a/afcecpbrshare.org/nm-az-group-fy13-pbr/ Question 24. Please clarify the regulatory process for the MMRP sites located on the NM bases. Ultimately, who besides the Air Force will determine if contract performance objectives have been met?

Government Response: Refer to Question 20.

Question 25. The newly provided “google” AFCEC web site housing the site documentation for the NM-AZ PBR is still missing a great deal of information for Holloman. The CSE Phase II report is not posted as promised during site visit. In fact, much of the documentation posted is for sites that are not in the SOO. When will a complete list or an up-to-date AR index be made available?

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 26. Similarly, the available documents for all Luke sites except Water Dog is very old (10 years +)

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 27. Will AFCEC provide any direction to contractors in the estimation of NM Gross receipts tax? The current state guidance is unclear and recent audit experience with the State Taxation and Revenue Department would suggest some direction be provided by the government to “level the field” with regard to the estimation of these costs.

Government Response: Refer to Question 11.

Question 28. Will AFCEC recognize the document review time frames stipulated in 20.4.2.1 NMAC, Tables 4 and 5 in developing Minimum Performance Objectives for sites located at New Mexico installations? Who will be responsible for paying the document review fees listed in 20.4.2.1 Tables 4 and 5 to the NMED?

Government Response: Yes, AFCEC will recognize the document review time frames stipulated in 20.4.2.1 NMAC in developing the MPOs for sites located in New Mexico. The installation will be responsible for paying for the associated document review fees.

Question 29. For all New Mexico installations, please clarify what specific bureau (e.g., Haz Waste, Ground Water) within the NMED will be the decision maker regarding site disposition (e.g., SC) Government Response: The Hazardous Waste Bureau.

Question 30. For sites currently not listed on a NM installation’s permit (MMRP or CRP sites), will AFCEC recognize the time frame necessary to have these sites formally listed on the permit via a Class III permit modification?

Government Response: Yes, AFCEC will recognize the necessary time frame to have these sites formally listed on the permit via a Class III permit modification.

Question 31. Can AFCEC provide the most recent version of the installation-specific RCRA permit for Kirtland AFB, Cannon AFB, and Holloman AFB?

Government Response: Refer to Question 14.

Question 32. Does the PBR contractor pay agency review fees for documentation submitted on behalf of the Air Force installations? If so what costs can we assume?

Government Response: Refer to Question 12.

Question 33. Would the PBR contractor have responsibilities regarding the Citizens Advisory Board, the Tijeras Arroyo groundwater Group, and/or DOE semi-annual public meetings? If so, please detail those responsibilities.

Government Response: Yes, refer to NM-AZ_PBR_SOO_Enc_1_-_FA8903-12-R-0050 in the RFP.

Question 34. Mr. Wayne Bitner of KAFB mentioned in his presentation that some of the monitoring wells at KAFB have dedicated pumps; but others do not. Can we get more details on the number of wells with dedicated pumps vs. those that do not?

Government Response: All landfills (LF-01, LF-02, and LF-08) do not have dedicated pumps. For ST-105 (Nitrate Abatement), there are approximately 15 (of 48) wells that have dedicated pumps (this includes the two FLUTe wells). For UST-58, all the 12 wells have dedicated pumps.

Question 35. Is there a documentation available for our review that describes the planned groundwater investigation activities at EOD Hill and the recent investigation activities (SWMU Assessment Reports and/or Accelerated Corrective Measures Work Plans) at the following CRP Sites at Kirtland: Zia Park (CW-571); Bldg. 5700-1 (OT-572); Asphalt Dump Area (OT-573); and Transient Alert Pad (SS-575)? The slides for KAFB indicate that an RFI is due in 2013 for the CRP sites; can the information collected for this RFI (or the RFI in a Draft form) be distributed for all potential bidders to review?

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 36. Will the AF be responsible for payment of all regulatory fees for submittal documents?

Government Response: Refer to Question 12.

Question 37. Please define what types of operations will require a performance bond under this contract.

Government Response: The Air Force is to require performance and payment bonds for only the construction portion of this PBR.

Question 38. Is Davis Bacon applicable to monitor well construction under this contract?

Government Response: For more detailed information, including copies of explanatory brochures and regulatory and interpretative materials, please refer to the links below or contact your local Wage and Hour Division office (a list of local Wage and Hour Division offices is available at http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/america2.htm). A Wage and Hour Division help line is also available at 1-866-4US-WAGE (487-9243).

Related Links Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Home Page at the U.S. Department of Labor http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/programs/dbra/index.htm Davis-Bacon Act Compliance Guide(U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Compliance Assistance Policy) http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/dbra.htm Additional Davis-Bacon Wage Determination Reference Material http://www.access.gpo.gov/davisbacon/referencemat.html Question 39. Please clarify the application of the New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax rate for this PBR.

Government Response: Refer to Question 11.

Question 40. For all work identified in Section 8.1.2 of the SOO as “in-progress” by other contractors, will funding of all CLINs and SubCLINs associated with these sites be delayed upon completion of the previous contractor period of performance and will these proposed CLINS and SubCLINs be negotiable pending the final outcome/endpoint of the previous contractor?

Government Response: Yes, for all work identified in Section 8.1.2 of the SOO as “in-progress” by other contractors, funding of all CLINs and SubCLINs associated with these sites will be delayed upon completion of the previous contractor period of performance. All CLINS and SubCLINs will be negotiated before award.

Question 41. During the Cannon AFB slide presentation, the Cannon POC stated that “none of the outstanding documents associated with the URS 500 series sites would be available during this procurement.” What is the AF justification not to provide these documents (timing of availability, document volume, etc.) and if the documents are not provided, how will URS avoid Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) and how will bidders be able to make appropriate cost assumptions.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Site Specific Questions Cannon AFB

Question 42. A large number of the administrative record (AR) documents cited in the slide presentation have not been provided to all bidders on the new Google website (e.g., AR-874, AR-1503, AR-1180, etc.). Please provide the relevant AR documents so that all bidders have the same information as incumbent contractors.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 43. 500 series UST sites (TU502 through TU505, SS501, SS507, and DA508) and TA129 (SWMU 129) –

An RFI Work plan for these sites was approved with modifications by NMED in November 2012 with a regulatory deadline to complete work and submit a Final RFI Report by February 28, 2014. The contract start date for the PBR is October 2013 which only leaves 5 months to implement the RFI at all the sites, and prepare draft and draft final documents for Air Force review cycles.

The MPO for these sites is RFI in 3 years which is noncompliant with the NMED approval letter. Will the AF release the PBR contractor from liability for missed regulatory deadlines for these sites?

The SOO Section 8.1.2 states that the URS contract for these sites expired 31 August 2012, before the RFI work plan was approved. However, the Final Deliverable/Outcome in this section specifies that URS will have completed “Site Investigation of Multiple Sites/RFA/RFI”.

Please confirm what, if any portion of the approved work plan has been implemented to date given that the work plan was approved after the period of performance.

Please clarify which of the above outcomes URS achieved: “Site Investigation of Multiple Sites or RFA or RFI” so that all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions.

Since URS retains documents/information unique to this solicitation, an apparent OCI exists. Will all current documents associated with their contract be posted in a timely manner by URS so as to avoid any OCI on their part?

Government Response: Refer to Question 23. URS is still under contract to complete the Approved RFI work plan. An OCI Mitigation Plan by URS will ensure; all data collected under this contract will be provided to all contractors during the proposal period.

Question 44. RS-C103, LF002, SW002 (TU/US-C002), SW004 (TU/US-C004), FT006, SW006 (TU/US-C006), AT010 (FT-C110), SD012 (SWMU 85), SD-12 (Storm-water collection point S. Playa), SD015, SD020, NE Storm-water drainage area (SWMU 95), MY031, TU/US-C071, FT-C109, WL-C102, SW111 (FT-C111), SW112 (FT-C112), TU/US-C126, SW127 (OW-C127), and TA/AS-C129 The SOO Section 8.1.2 states that the above 21 Sites are currently under a performance based contract with Shaw which does not expire until 31 August 2013. However, the Final Deliverable/Outcome in this section specifies that Shaw will achieve “ISM and AF Approved Draft RFI or RC for all sites not achieving SC”. However, the government MPO for all these sites (with exception of RS103 with RC) is OES.

Please clarify specifically the appropriate expected endpoint for each site under Shaw’s contract so that all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions.

Since Shaw retains documents/information unique to this solicitation, an apparent Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) exists. Will all current documents associated with their contract be posted in a timely manner by Shaw so as to avoid any OCI on their part?

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 45. SD022 (SWMU 73) Stormwater Drainage and Retention Basin on GC

The SOO Section 8.1.2 states that the above site was under contract with Tetra Tech and expired on 24 September 2012. The work plan for the RFA was not approved by NMED until April 2012, with only six months remaining in the period of performance. The Final Deliverable/Outcome in this section specifies that Tetra Tech will achieve “Approved RFA”. However, the government MPO for this site “Approved RFI within 3 years of NTP”.

Please confirm what, if any portion of the approved work plan has been implemented to date and confirm the status of the RFA Report which has not been provided and is not in NMED files.

Please clarify if Tetra Tech has achieved an Approved RFA and what is the regulatory outcome. Did the RFA recommend an RFI be performed so all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions?

Since Tetra Tech apparently retains documents/information unique to this solicitation, an apparent Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) exists. Will all current documents associated with their contract be posted in a timely manner by Tetra Tech so as to avoid any OCI on their part?

To achieve the MPO for this site, the PBR contractor must get approval of both an RFI Work Plan and an RFI Report, both of which have NMED regulatory review durations of up to 270 days each for a total of 1.5 years. Will the AF agree to expedited review cycles in order to meet this very aggressive schedule for work plan preparation, RFI implementation, and RFI report writing/submittal?

Government Response: No portion of the Approved RFA has been implemented as of January 18. Tetra Tech is still under contract to complete the Approved RFA work plan. An OCI Mitigation Plan submitted by Tetra Tech will ensure; all data collected under this contract will be provided to all contractors during the proposal period. For the purposes of this solicitation utilize the regulatory review schedules posted on the respective websites for New Mexico Environment Department and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Question 46. DPO36 (SWMU 36) –MWR Body Shop Please provide technical clarification regarding the actual identity and status of this site:

In the slide presentation provided for this site, it is referred to as a 100-gallon tank which has been removed from Building 194. The figure on the slide identifies Building 214. Is this the same location with a Building number change?

Reference AR-1180 has not been provided on any website to date. Please provide a copy of AR-1180.

The Phase II Final Evaluation Report prepared in August 2009 by URS under contract W912QR-04-D-0025 identifies the following as SWMU 36 but does not match the description provided in the presentation slides. AOC 36 is outside of Building 214 and appears to be different site? Which is the correct identity and included in this PBR?

The presentation slide indicates that SWMU 36 is eligible to be submitted for a Permit Modification since “the site no longer exist(s)”. This is not one of the 5 criteria for no further action accepted by NMED. Please provide the regulatory justification for this conclusion.

Government Response: Yes, it is the same location with a building number change. The only remaining infrastructure at B. 214 is within the building, and consists of an OWS. A CACP by SHAW will provide justification for closure. SHAW will provide all documentation to all contractors.

Question 47. TU071 (SWMU 71) Recovered JP-4 Tank 390; TU070 (SWMU 70) OWS and Leach Field 326; and TU126 (SWMU 126) Inactive Underground Storage Tank

The SOO Section 8.1.2 states that the above sites were under contract with North Wind and expired on 03 July 2012. The Final Closure Work Plan for SWMU 70 and 71 was approved in July 2010. The Final Deliverable/Outcome in this section specifies that North Wind will achieve “FL070, (stopped at RFI Workplan; Accelerated Corrective Measure report); TU071, TU126/ Final Closure for FL070, TU071, and TU126. The MPO for these sites is OES.

Please clarify the confusing outcome above and confirm for each site what, if any, portion of the approved work plan has been implemented to date and the status of the Final Closure Report so that all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions.

Since NorthWind retains documents/information unique to this solicitation, an apparent Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) exists (these final closure documents have not been provided and are not in NMED files). Will all current documents associated with their contract be posted in a timely manner by NorthWind so as to avoid any OCI on their part?

The presentation slides for SWMU 71 and SWMU 126 states that the sites are currently under contract for CACP. There are no active contracts for this site listed in Section 8.1.2 of the SOO. Please identify the contract, POP, contractor, and when the contractor will submit the Corrective Action Complete Petition for these sites and if the contractor scope includes the Class 3 Permit Modification so that all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions.

For TU-126, there is no information provided regarding this SWMU on the PBR website other than the small excerpt in the Phase II Final Evaluation Report prepared in August 2009 by URS under contract W912QR-04-D-0025. Please provide all relevant documents referenced in the presentation slides (AR-1503, AR-874).

Government Response: During historical document research, North Wind located information it finds sufficient to complete a CACP for SWMU 71 and TU126. Soil sampling is still required at SWMU 70, including soil borings to 110 ft. North Wind will ensure all data collected under this contract is available to all contractors if the data is received during the proposal period. The CACPs are to be accomplished by North Wind. The 2013 permit modification will include these sites if the CACP’s are approved. Cannon AFB Administrative Record can be found at Clovis Public Library.

Question 48. MY031 AGE Maintenance Shop and SW127/128? OWS near Tank 495

The SOO Section 8.1.2 states that the above sites were under contract with North Wind and expired on 03 July 2012. The Final Deliverable/Outcome in this section specifies that North Wind will achieve “Implementation of Remediation”.

Since NorthWind retains documents/information unique to this solicitation, an apparent Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) exists. When and where will all current documents associated with this contract be posted by the AF or North Wind? Since NMED commented on the Final Remedy Completion Report in 2010 and the contract extended to 2012, did North Wind address the NMED documents and submit a revised document for approval?

Is the wash pad associated with this SWMU 127 still being used? If so where is water going from the wash pad?

For MY031, please provide the relevant documents referenced in the presentation slides (AR- 1666).

Government Response: NorthWind will ensure all data collected under this contract is available to all contractors if the data is received during the proposal period. No, the wash pad associated with SWMU 127 is not in use. Cannon AFB Administrative Record can be found at Clovis Public Library.

Question 49. WL102 (SWMU 102) Wastewater Treatment Effluent Discharge

This site had a discharge pipe present underground that went from sewage lagoon SWMU 101 to the playa lake SWMU 103.

1. Is the pipe still in the ground?

2. What is diameter of pipe?

3. What is the total depth of the bottom of the pipe?

4. Is this pipe still used?

Government Response: Yes, the pipe is still in the ground, it’s diameter is 10 inches, the total depth to the bottom of the pipe is approximately 3 feet, and no, the pipe is not in use.

Question 50. RS-C103 (SWMU 103)Wastewater Playa Lake (North Playa Lake)

Phase 2 RFI Report was reviewed by NMED in November 2012. Was site requested for/ and approved for CAC?

Government Response: The site is currently requested for CACP.

Question 51. SWMU 107, FT-08 Fire Training Area

There are currently no documents associated with this site on the provided website. Please provide all relevant documents pertaining to this site. In particular, please provide the Final SAP for Remedial Action Construction –dated 12/30/11. Should all bidders assume that this document will be approved in advance of the initiation of the PBR in order to make appropriate cost assumptions?

Government Response: The SAP was approved and is being implemented January 13.

Question 52. SWMU 113, LF-05, Cell 3

The presentation slide indicates that this site has been included in the facility-wide groundwater LTM Plan. The site is currently shown on Table 2 of the draft permit as not requiring controls. Has negotiation of the draft permit changed the site status. If so, please provide the most current version of the draft Cannon RCRA Permit and any potential changes to Tables 1 and 2.

Government Response: LF-05 is a Landfill and inherently has LUCs as a Landfill. There is no “draft” RCRA Permit. The current permit does not articulate LUC details for any sites. The 2013 RCRA Permit renewal will articulate what LUCs are required for which sites.

Question 53. TS835 Former Skeet Range

Please provide the Phase I and Phase II Comprehensive Site Evaluation Reports so that all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions for this site.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 54. When will the following documents be available for review/reference?

a. Documents prepared by Shaw Group for 20 sites included in the Midwestern PBR Bridge award.

b. CCR for SI101 (Wastewater Treatment System - Lagoons 1 and 2) by Foster Wheeler Environmental (2006).

c. CSE Phase I and II for TS835 (Former Skeet Range).

d. December 2012 Annual LTM Report for the LFs and Lagoon (once published).

e. 2012 5-Year Review (once published).

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 55. Is SWMU 107/FT08 included in the PBR? SWMU 107/FT08 was not on the site list provided in Enclosure 1 of the SOO, but is described in the AFCEC Presentation and was mentioned during the physical site visit at Cannon AFB. If the site is part of the PBR, when will the Removal Action Complete Report be made available for review?

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 56. Is there a more recent RCRA permit (more recent than 2003)?

Government Response: There is a 2006 modification.

Question 57. Who will be required to pay the NMED document review fees, Contractor or CAFB?

Government Response: The installation will be responsible for payment of NMED document review fees.

Question 58. In the Draft RFP, please provide NMED document review times the contractor should use to develop the PBR schedule.

Government Response: Refer to Question 9.

Question 59. During the site visit at Cannon AFB, Mr. Higginbotham stated that the Air Force would be pausing all field work including RA-C until after the PBR contract is awarded (i.e., approximately August 2013 per the pre-proposal conference). Please confirm which types of field work will be stopped/postponed and whether this is only at Cannon AFB or at all 4 installations. Given that August 2013 is 8+ months away it may be in the Air Force’s best interest to keep field work and remediation moving forward.

Government Response: No fieldwork is to be stopped or postponed.

Question 60. Please indicate when the multi site PA/SI will be available for review by all PBR bidders.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Site Specific Questions Holloman AFB

Question 61. Background studies

Nitrate—What is the status of the background study of nitrate in groundwater? The final work plan was submitted in January 2012. It appears this study will include a nitrate source area investigation at six sites which include OT037 and SS039. Please identify the contractor performing the study and provide any and all documents relevant to this site to ensure all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions.

Perchlorate—What is the status of the Phase II perchlorate study in soil? Please identify the contractor performing the study and provide any and all documents relevant to this site to ensure all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 62. SS013 Sodium Arsenite Spill Area

If NMED response is received during this procurement process, please provide copies of any NMED correspondence as soon as available so that all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 63. OT014 Former Entomology Shop Area

If NMED response is received during this procurement process, please provide copies of any NMED correspondence as soon as available so that all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 64. OT032 Former Primate Research Area

Has Holloman AFB received a response from NMED on the Final Accelerated Corrective Measures Completion Report submitted to NMED in September 2012? If yes, please provide copies of the associated document(s).

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 65. OT038 Test Sled Maintenance Area

Has any work been conducted at the site since the investigation in 1992? The site summaries document (AR-1402) in 2007 says the site is under a PBR contract to conduct additional RFI activities and the slide references additional characterization work performed in 2008. Please provide copies of the current reports relevant to this site?

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 66. SS065 Test Cell Surface Spill

The slide presentation indicates that an investigation was performed at this site in 2008 and that the report has been ready for submittal to NMED for four years.

· Please provide copies of this document so that all bidders can have appropriate cost assumptions/

· Please identify the contractor who performed this work.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 67. SS069 Flightline Fuel Spill Area

The slide presentation indicates that a report summarizing the 2008 investigation will be submitted in 2013 and that the site is contracted until 01 September 2015. There are currently no transition contracts/contractors identified for this site in Section 8.1.2 of the SOO. However, the MPO for this site is SC in 5 years.

· Is it the AF intent to remove this site from this PBR contract? If not, what is the endpoint for the current contractor so that all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions.

· Since an unknown contractor retains documents/information unique to this solicitation, an apparent Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) exists. How will AF address this OCI? When and where will all current documents associated with this contract be posted by the AF (or contractor) in order to avoid any apparent OCI issue?

Government Response: No, there is no intent to remove the site from the PBR. Refer to NM-AZ_PBR_SOO_Enc_1_-_FA8903-12-R-0050 in the RFP. Refer to Question 23.

Question 68. TU/US-C500, TU/US-C501, TU/US-C503, TU/US-C504, TU/US-C505, TU/US-C506, TU/US-C508, , TU/US-C513, and TU/US-C518; Nine Former Underground Storage Tank Sites

The SOO Section 8.1.2 states that the above 9 Sites are currently under a performance based contract with Shaw which requires the Final Deliverable/Outcome “ISM and AF Approved Draft RFI within 16 months of NTP, 31 December 2012”. As the deliverable is due this month:

· Since Shaw retains documents/information unique to this solicitation, an apparent Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) exists. Will all current documents associated with their contract be posted in a timely manner by Shaw so as to avoid any OCI on their part?

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 69. SS17 BX Gas Station

The presentation slide indicates that the current contractor will complete a comprehensive report summarizing all remedial activities by 31 August 2012. There are currently no transition contracts/contractors identified for this site in Section 8.1.2 of the SOO and no endpoint. The slide further discusses that there is excavation on-going and air sparging of PCS. The MPO for this site is OES.

Please specify the expected endpoint for the site under this contract so that all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions.

Please identify the current contractor.

When and where will all current documents associated with this contract be posted by the contractor as part of the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) process?

Will this site only include the area north and east which is the off-site Area of Concern? Or is it the entire former BX gas station site?

Government Response: Refer to NM-AZ_PBR_SOO_Enc_1_-_FA8903-12-R-0050 in the RFP. Refer to Question 23.

Question 70. TU518 UST 7003

What is the depth to groundwater at this location which is about 15 miles northwest of the main base?

Government Response: The depth to groundwater at this location is between 15 to 25 BGS.

Question 71. ALL MMRP Sites

When will the CSE Phase II be available for review so that all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions?

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 72. ALL MMRP Sites

What are the work day restrictions (days of week, daily work hours)?

Government Response: The HAFB Restoration government staff hours are between 0630-1700 Monday through Friday and they are allowed to have a compressed work schedule that allows one day off per pay period. The work on the flight line may be restricted by the flying schedule. The work at the test track area may be restricted by the test schedule.

Question 73. ALL MMRP Sites

Is there an approved basewide Explosives Safety Submission or Explosives Site Plan for all MMRP sites and for LF-029 Old Army Landfill? If yes, then please provide.

Government Response: No, there is not an approved basewide Explosives Safety Submission or Explosives Site Plan.

Question 74. ALL MMRP Sites

Can scrap metals be accepted by the base Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office?

Government Response: The DLA-DS may accept recyclable and/or precious metals if certain conditions are met.

Question 75. ALL MMRP Sites

What are the access restrictions to MMRP sites?

Government Response: There may be certain restrictions to flightline areas due to flying schedules. The ODOS area will have access restricted by EOD until NMED closes the RCRA Part B permit.

Question 76. ALL MMRP Sites

Can the contractor store donor explosives and explosive initiators in existing explosives storage magazines on installation?

Government Response: No, the contractor may not store donor explosives and explosive initiators in existing explosives storage magazines at the installation.

Question 77. XU854 Able 51 Area

What is the nature and expiration of any property access agreements with White Sands Missile Range?

Government Response: The Able 51 Area is located outside of the Base boundary; however, the site is owned by Holloman AFB. The Laboratory of Anthropology Site Record for the Able 51 Area lists the current site owner as Holloman AFB, on land administered by WSMR. The Able 51 Area is currently abandoned.

Question 78. LF-029 Old Army Landfill

Bay West prepared a work plan for the Remedial Action at this site and the work was implemented. Were M125 bomblets located at this site and can the installation confirm that no CWM or biological hazards exists at the Old Army Landfill? Is there an existing Risk Probability Assessment for this site concerning CWM? Please provide the following reports, the Bay West After Action Report, RI and 22nd Chemical Battalion (TEU) report.?

Government Response: Yes, M125 bomblets were found at this site. Refer to Question 23.

Question 79. SS067 Spill and Sand Blasting Residual Area

The slide presentation indicates that a report summarizing the 2007 investigation will be submitted in 2013 and that the site is contracted until 01 September 2015. There are currently no transition contracts/contractors identified for this site in Section 8.1.2 of the SOO. However, the MPO for this site is SC in 2 years.

· Is it the AF intent to remove this site from this PBR contract? If not, what is the endpoint for the current contractor so that all bidders can make appropriate cost assumptions.

· Since an unknown contractor retains documents/information unique to this solicitation, an apparent Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) exists. How will AF address this OCI? When and where will all current documents associated with this contract be posted by the AF (or contractor) in order to avoid any apparent OCI issue?

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 80. Site OT020

Please provide most recent site groundwater monitoring and O&M data.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 81. Site OT037

· The only data available for this site is through the 1991 DD. Please provide more recent documents on current site conditions.

· Technical Document to Support Site Closeout was attached in the DD, but no signature was obtained. Was the DD finalized with signatures?

· Were septic systems at the site used?

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 82. Site SD026

The most recent document is 2007 Site Summary; was additional site characterization performed between 2008 and 2012? If so, please provide these reports.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 83. Site OT038

The most recent document is 2007 Site Summary; was additional site characterization performed between 2008 and 2012? If so, please provide these reports.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 84. Site SS065

The most recent document is the 2008 MAP. Was RFI performed between 2008 and 2012? If so, please provide this and other documents that provide current status of the site.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 85. Site SS069

The most recent document is the 2008 MAP. Was RFI performed between 2008 and 2012? If so, please provide this and other documents that provide current status of the site.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 86. Site SS018

Regarding Site SS-18 (Chromic Acid Spill Site), the kickoff presentation slide indicated that from 2008 to 2012 "3 rounds of investigation have been conducted". We find no record of these investigation activities in the AR documents provided. Are any reports available that document the investigation activities and results at Site SS-18 between 2008 and 2012?

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 87. Site LF029

Will activities conducted at this site be subject MMRP requirements and require UXO support?

Government Response: Activities conducted at the site will be subject to IRP requirements. The UXO support would be determined by the contractor.

Question 88. Please confirm whether site XU853 Missile Test Stands Area (SOO Encl 1) the same as the Missile Testing/Launch Site (CSE Phase I Report)?

Government Response: Yes, they refer to the same site.

Question 89. There appears to be a problem with two files listed on the google site. The same document is posted as: “ER_HOLMN_FNL” and “ER_HOLMN_FNL_Tanks” despite the documents having different file names. This is apparent only upon opening each file. It appears the document without “tanks” in the filename is incorrect and should be replaced with the correct document.

Government Response: The proper document will be uploaded to the Google document server link.

Question 90. Please indicate whether the field work described in the Final Work Plan for Site SS013 has been conducted. If so, please provide the results even if they are considered draft.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 91. Has the background study submitted to NMED in 2009 been approved? If not, when does the Air Force expect to receive approval? How will long regulatory delays of document reviews be dealt with under the PBR?

Government Response: Refer to Question 61. The Air Force has extremely limited ability to control Regulatory Agency review times and additional costs incurred by the Contractor attributable to Regulatory Agency delays will not be compensable.

Question 92. Has the work at OT014 been conducted per the 2009 work plan? If so, please post the results.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 93. Please provide the following documents: 1988 RFA report for SS065 and Installation Restoration Program, Records Search for Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico (CH2M Hill, August 1983).

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Site Specific Questions Kirtland AFB

Question 94. Please indicate which documents posted on “sites.google.com” and the KAFB AR website pertains to EOD Hill (CG570). The map shown in the site visit briefing contains proposed well locations. Have these wells been installed and sampled? Please provide the planning documents and subsequent data, or indicate when data will be available to all PBR bidders.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 95. ST070E: please indicate when the additional well(s) requested by NMED will be installed and when the data will be available to all PBR bidders.

Government Response: Refer to Question 17.

Question 96. ST070E: please provide the Jan-June 2012 ICM report.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 97. Zia Park: please indicate when the RFI report will be available to all PBR bidders.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 98. OT-572, OT-0573, SS-575: please indicate when the RFI report(s) will be available to all PBR bidders.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 99. WP-026: please indicate when forensics data/report will be available to all PBR bidders.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 100. PL567: please provide data collected in 2012.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 101. MMRP sites: please indicate when the draft RI will be available to all PBR bidders.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 102. Please post the CRP eligibility report or indicate where on the Kirtland AR it can be found.

Government Response: Refer to Question 23.

Question 103. Site LF001

· Please provide reason why has the CMI Report (2006) not been approved by NMED.

· During the site tour, Mr. Bitner mentioned something to the effect that “all 3 landfills (including LF001) have letters stating they should be closed”. Can these “letters” or documents be made available for review by the potential bidders?

Government Response: Letters are posted on the Kirtland AR/IR under appropriate site names LF-001, 002 & 008.

Question 104. Site LF002

· Please provide reason why has the CMI Report (2006) not been approved by NMED.

· The summary slides for KAFB indicate that LF-002 is “almost entirely in the Tijeras Arroyo Floodplain”. However, previous AR Documents reviewed indicate that the arroyo was modified in 1999 to accommodate the 100-yr flood event such that it avoids possible inundation. Is LF-002 considered to be in the 100-yr floodplain of the Tijeras Arroyo, and is the revetment systems constructed at the arroyo edge maintained by KAFB as part of LF-002?

· In the Installation Plan (2011), installation of 2 more wells is proposed. Please provide update on if wells were installed.

· During the site tour, Mr. Bitner mentioned something to the effect that “all 3 landfills (including LF002) have letters stating they should be closed”. Can these “letters” or documents be made available for review by the potential bidders?

Government Response: Refer to Question 103.

Question 105. Site LF008

· When does KAFB anticipate stabilization of vegetative cover so that inspection frequencies can be reduced? What would be the anticipated reduced inspection frequency?

· Per the Aug 2011 Annual Report, was the evaluation for additional slope stabilization to minimize erosion and downstream sedimentation problems conducted?

· Per the Aug 2011 Annual Report, was the evaluation of upslope drainage patterns from adjacent C&D landfill to control run-on conducted?

· During the site tour, Mr. Bitner mentioned something to the effect that “all 3 landfills (including LF008) have letters stating they should be closed”. Can these “letters” or documents be made available for review by the potential bidders?

Government Response: Refer to Question 103.

Question 106. Site WP026

· How long does the KAFB intend to use the ponds and GCMP containing nitrate-rich water?

· Per 2008 request, nitrate contamination in the perched aquifer was to be managed under the Nitrate Abatement Plan, which had been approved by NMED GWQB, what is the status of this activity.

· Is the nitrate in perched aquifer to be addressed under ST-105?

Government Response: Government Response: The KAFB intended use for the pond and GCMP is indefinite. The pond supports the Golf Course.