FA8903-14-R-0001_Draft_RFP_Questions_Final_22_Jan_2014.pdf

RFP QUESTIONS / RESPONSES

FA8903-143-R-00010070

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base Cape Cod, MA

20 August22 January 20132014

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

1. Please confirm this is PBR a service contract and that the Small-Business needs to provide a minimum of 51% of the labor in accordance with FAR 52.219-14 - Limitations on Subcontracting.

This is a service contract. At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.

2. Are O&M of the wind turbines included in this contract? If so, which Sub-CLIN shall we include the cost for O&M of these facilities.

Yes, for the three AFCEC 1.5 megawatt (MW) wind turbines, prorate costs across the sites with treatment systems based on flow rate used by those treatment systems. For the two 1.68 MW Air Force Space Command (PAVE PAWS) wind turbines, assign the costs to a separate sub-CLIN.

3. At the end of the PBR PoP, will the selected contractor be responsible for replenishing the inventory of government furnished equipment?

For example, the trucks will be upwards of 20 years old at the end of the PoP.

The Contractor will not be responsible for replenishing the inventory of GFE/GFP at the end of the PBR contract period of performance (POP).

The Contractor has the option of accepting or declining all, or part of, the GFE/GFP offered by the Government for the JBCCMMR PBR contract.

The Contractor is responsible for the care (including basic maintenance), custody, and control of the accepted GFE/GFP during the contract POP and for replenishing the GFE/GFP as it is used. If the accepted GFE/GFP wears out or breaks during the POP, the Contractor has the option of renting/buying replacement GFE/GFP during the POP to achieve performance objectives.

The Contractor shall be required to manage the disposition of accepted GFE/GFP that is unusable (i.e. broken, no longer needed, etc).

4. At the site walk, it was mentioned that repairs to the turbines is not included in the PBR. What is considered standard O&M versus repairs?

Minor repairs, including repair/purchase of parts, are part of the PBR contract scope (i.e. changing out an encoder, brushes, resistors, fuses, etc).

Larger repairs (i.e. changing out gearboxes, repairing blades) are not part of the PBR scope.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

5. We would be interested in meeting with the Regulators (USEPA and MassDEP) as discussed at the Site Walk. Our preference would be before the Final RFP is released.

All offerors may work directly with the regulators to attempt to schedule a meeting. As a note, any discussions with the regulators are not contractually binding and are not to be considered as an official government position.

EPA Contact: Ms. Lynne Jennings, Jennings.Lynne@epa.gov , 617-918-1210

MassDEP Contact: Mr. Len Pinaud, leonard.pinaud@state.ma.us , 508-946-2871

6. What are the effluent discharge criteria for the treatment systems?

Refer to carbon exchange criteria in 2013 O&M plan, which can be found on the Google docs website.

7. If the drinking water pathway becomes complete since a privately owned well is now contaminated, is the PBR contractor responsible for the costs to remedy this situation?

Yes

8. It is understood that as part of the MMR Three- Step Process, once RALs (i.e. MCLs) have been achieved in groundwater and has been confirmed through additional temporal monitoring, a feasibility study to achieve background conditions is required. In the event that the regulators insist on additional treatment (even MNA) to achieve background conditions, will AFCEC consider the site at SC conditions after completing Steps 1 and 2 (achieving MCLs and confirming through temporal monitoring)?

No, this scenario would be considered RC with LTM, not SC. Note that demonstration of achieving MCLs may also require additional spatial monitoring (i.e. installing new wells) as well as additional temporal monitoring.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

mailto:Jennings.Lynne@epa.gov mailto:leonard.pinaud@state.ma.us

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

9. Can AFCEC identify other sole-source aquifer groundwater contaminant sites within Massachusetts or EPA Region 1 where the 3-Step process, or at a minimum Step 3 (the feasibility of achieving background) has been conducted. If no, can AFCEC pose the same question to the regulatory agencies (EPA and MassDEP).

AFCEC is not aware of any sites in MA or EPA Region 1 that are in a sole-source aquifer where the 3-step process has been conducted.

AFCEC forwarded this question to EPA and MassDEP. EPA stated JBCCMMR is the only site in Region 1 above a sole source aquifer.

MassDEP stated all MCP sites are required to evaluate the feasibility of approaching or achieving background. Under the MCP, “Achieve” means to meet site specific or default background concentrations for all CoCs in all impacted media and “Approach” means to meet site appropriate, site specific risk based cleanup standards or default (i.e. M1) standards for all CoCs.

All offerors may work directly with the regulators to attempt to schedule a meeting if offerors wish to discuss this further with the regulators.

As a note, any discussions with the regulators are not contractually binding and are not to be considered as an official government position.

EPA Contact: Ms. Lynne Jennings, Jennings.Lynne@epa.gov , 617-918-1210

MassDEP Contact: Mr. Len Pinaud, leonard.pinaud@state.ma.us , 508-946-2871

10. If cranberries are considered unsuitable for market due to the groundwater plumes, will the contractor be responsible for compensation to the cranberry farmer(s)?

No, the contractor will not be responsible for compensation to the cranberry farmer(s).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

11. Are the Source Area Sites included as part of this PBR? Are the O&M requirements associated with CS-10/FS-24 or PFSA (FS-10/FS-11) required as part of the OES for SS022: CS-10 UTES/BOMARC Site and SS040:FS-10 (GW)/SS041:FS-11(GW)?

Also, to obtain SC for a groundwater site, would the contractor be required to achieve SC for the associated Source Area Site?

Source area CS-10/FS-24 is not included in the PBR contract. PFSA is included in Table 2. The LF-1 source area is included in the PBR contract.

For the Table 1 groundwater sites in the PBR contract, if the Contractor is stretching to SC, the source area would need to be closed as well. Note that many of the plumes do not have identified sources areas (i.e. CS-20, CS-21, CS-23, FS-28, FS- 29), some sources areas are going through the closure process now (i.e. FS-12 and FTA-1) and are not part of the PBR contract, and some source areas are already closed (i.e. CS-4, FS-1). CS-19 source area is in an active range and is considered closed for the IRP.

Note that CS-10 is a large plume and while there is only one identified source area, it is likely that numerous source areas contributed to the groundwater plume.

12. The LF-1 groundwater plume is not specifically listed in Table 1; however the LF-1 Main Base Landfill is listed as a site; is the LF-1 groundwater plume included in the LF-1 Main Base Landfill site?

Yes, the LF-1 groundwater plume is included as part of the LF-1 Main Base Landfill site.

13. In the 26 June 2013 EPA letter to Mr. Davis, the USEPA requests that the Former Ammunition Supply Point be retained in the USAF MMRP for further action and that a Work Plan is being developed for this site. Will the Former Ammunition Supply Point be included in the Final PWS? If the Ammunition Supply Point is being included in the Final PWS, can the Work Plan that is reference in the EPA's 26 June 2013 be uploaded to the FTP site?

No, the Former Ammunition Supply Point will not be included in the Final PWS.

14. In the 26 June 2013 EPA letter to Mr. Davis, the EPA references a teleconference with the stakeholders on 15 May 2013. Can the minutes from the 15 May 2013 teleconference be uploaded to the FTP site?

No, the Former Ammunition Supply Point will not be included in the Final PWS.

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

15. Can the ITSI/TLI Solutions HRR (August 2009) be uploaded to the FTP site?

Yes, the requested document has been uploaded to Google docs.

16. Is the contractor responsible for outreach as part of the Land Use Control (LUC) program; if so, where is this process explained including the required frequency?

The Air Force will be primarily responsible for outreach. The Air Force will send out the mailings, populate the database, verify wells, and communicate with property owners.

The contractor will assist with coordination, assist with database entries, conduct technical evaluations and provide other support such as generating figures, providing GIS coordinates, conducting database queries, and sampling.

Please review the Private Well Verification Plan in Google docs. Note that an update to the Plan is being prepared and will be available on Google docs at a later date.

17. PWS Page 19 of 29 Section 7.3 - The PWS states that, “the contractor shall identify specific site characterization activities proposed to achieve the performance objectives.” Does this mean that the Air Force expects to receive details of site characterization plans in the proposal to this RFP, or rather during the specific site cleanup proposal/approval process with AFCEC and the regulatory agencies after contract award?

The statement in the PWS is intended to mean that the details of site characterization plans should be provided during the specific site cleanup activities (post award).

Note the Air Force is requesting, as part of Section L, quantitative performance models for LF006 (LF-

1) and SS022 (CS-10) to be included with the proposals. Contractors may determine that site characterization plans are needed for this effort.

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

18. PWS Page 20 of 29 and 23 of 29 Sections 8.0 and 8.2.1 - There appear to be a conflict between section 8.0 and 8.2.1. Section 8.0, first paragraph, states that the contractor will have requirements to perform a full range of activities that, “may include, but are not limited to completion of conceptual design(s)”... However, in section 8.2.1, Completion of Conceptual Designs, there is a statement that reads “Not applicable to this contract”. Please clarify.

Conceptual site models/designs will be required as part of the PBR work. The original wording of paragraph 8.2.1 indicated the Government would provide a conceptual design to the contractor and then the contractor would complete a formal design based on the provided conceptual design.

Since the Government does not intend to provide conceptual designs as part of the PBR, this section was deemed “not applicable”.

However, AFCEC does recognize this can be interpreted as conflicting information and will insert the following text into PWS paragraph 8.2.1 Completion of Conceptual Design with revisions.

“The Contractor shall provide a conceptual design (typically 10–30% design) for environmental projects for completion of the design and then construction. This work may be provided in phases. The Contractor is accountable for all aspects of the final design under federal, state, and applicable local laws. All completed designs shall be signed and sealed in accordance with all applicable requirements. The Contractor shall complete project working drawings and the various plans and schedules, including a construction schedule, and obtain submittal approvals and permits. Working drawings and specifications shall comply with codes, laws, and the request for proposal requirements. The working drawings shall be submitted for AF review. The Contractor shall implement, coordinate, and execute all regulatory reviews, shall ensure technical adequacy of the final design, and shall provide quality control of all phases of the contract.”

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

19. PWS Page 24 of 29 section 8.5 - This paragraph states that the contractor shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, monitoring, optimization, and evaluation of in-place environmental systems throughout their “active life”. We assume this sentence should read: “… throughout the end of the POP or until SC, whichever occurs first under this contract.”

The phrase “throughout their active life” will be removed from the sentence.

The Contractor will be responsible for the treatment systems during the contract POP. If the system is shut down before the end of the POP, the Contractor will still be responsible for maintaining it for the duration of the POP.

Note that system shut down does not necessarily qualify as SC.

20. Section M Page 4 of 15 - Can you clarify the types of cost data that we can include in the technical section when doing the contingency discussions and the business case analysis?

Limited cost data should be included in the technical section when doing the contingency discussions and the business case analysis. Any cost data provided should not give any indication as to the proposed price for the applicable site(s).

As a note, all pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal Volume (Volume IV).

21. Section M Page 6 of 15 - Do you need to provide the Plan B or contingency approach for approaches that meet the proposed performance objectives? How does the contingency approach vary from the business case analysis?

Yes. Refer to Section M.

22. Section M Page 7 of 15 - Can you define the differences between relevant team member, teaming partner and subcontractor? How do they vary?

Teaming members and teaming partners are considered the same. A subcontractor is anyone that does not have a signed Teaming Arrangement or Letter of Intent per 2.1.7 of Section L.

23. It is understood that MMR has contracted out maintenance of the wind turbines to another contractor. Please clarify the major requirements for the wind turbine O&M. Will major repair work be the responsibility of the contractor?

Minor repairs, including repair/purchase of parts, are part of the PBR contract scope (i.e. changing out an encoder, brushes, resistors, fuses, etc).

Larger repairs (i.e. changing out gearboxes, repairing blades) are not part of the PBR scope.

Also, please refer to the Site Visit Summary posted on FBOPWS.

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

24. Will the repair or replacement costs of damage to equipment and facilities due vandalism be the responsibility of the contractor?

Yes, to an extent. The contractor will be required to replace damaged lighting, paint over graffiti, replace copper grounding cable, etc. but would not be responsible for wholesale replacement of a treatment plant that is burned down, for example.

25. Is it the responsibility of the contractor to maintain all GFE, in particular vehicle inspection, maintenance, and replacement?

Yes.

The Contractor will not be responsible for replenishing the inventory of GFE/GFP at the end of the PBR contract POP.

The Contractor has the option of accepting or declining all, or part of, the GFE/GFP offered by the Government for the JBCCMMR PBR contract.

The Contractor is responsible for the care (including basic maintenance), custody, and control of the accepted GFE/GFP during the contract POP and for replenishing the GFE/GFP as it is used. If the accepted GFE/GFP wears out or breaks during the POP, the Contractor has the option of renting/buying replacement GFE/GFP during the POP to achieve performance objectives.

The Contractor shall be required to manage the disposition of accepted GFE/GFP that is unusable (i.e. broken, no longer needed, etc).

26. Are all key personnel, identified in the PWS, required to be furnished by the prime contractor?

No

27. At the site walk, AFCEC indicated that interested bidders may be allowed to meet with the EPA. We request a one-on-one meeting with the EPA. If schedules permit, we request a meeting on September 20, 2013. If this date is not acceptable, we will be available for a meeting whenever it is convenient for the EPA and AFCEC.

All offerors may work directly with the regulators to attempt to schedule a meeting. As a note, any discussions with the regulators are not contractually binding and are not to be considered as an official government position.

EPA Contact: Ms. Lynne Jennings, Jennings.Lynne@epa.gov , 617-918-1210

MassDEP Contact: Mr. Len Pinaud, leonard.pinaud@state.ma.us , 508-946-2871

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

28. In addition to the meetings to be scheduled with EPA, will the AF schedule similar meetings with MADEP?

All offerors may work directly with the regulators to attempt to schedule a meeting. As a note, any discussions with the regulators are not contractually binding and are not to be considered as an official government position.

EPA Contact: Ms. Lynne Jennings, Jennings.Lynne@epa.gov , 617-918-1210

MassDEP Contact: Mr. Len Pinaud, leonard.pinaud@state.ma.us , 508-946-2871

29. In the draft RFP Section L proposal instruction AFCEC refers to Teaming Agreements (TA) and Letters of Intent (LOI). Please clarify AFCEC requirement for contractors to submit TAs and/or LOIs.

Please refer to Section 2.1.7 of Section L. All Team Members shall have a signed Teaming Arrangement (TA) or Letter of Intent (LOI).

TAs/LOIs must be provided in Volume I, Contract Documentation, and Volume II, Technical.

30. Please clarify that the draft solicitation is the model contract or provide the model contract.

The formal solicitation will be considered the model contract.

31. The PWS provides passing mention of “Table 2” sites where the Minimum Performance Objective (MPO) is the only requested end objective for these sites (specifically, no stretch objectives should be offered on these sites).

Please consider adding language to Section 1.2 in the PWS (or elsewhere), similar to other recent solicitations, to describe the requirements for these sites.

Refer to the LTM documents on Google docs for SD-5 and FTA-2. A draftn LTM plan for PFSA has been developed and is posted on Google docs;

however, the plan has not yet been reviewed or approved by the regulators. is currently being developed and will be available in Sep 2013. .

Please reference Section L - Paragraph 4.4 for proposal instructions regarding Table 2 sites.

32. We realize that an MMR-specific Three-Step Process is required to be completed prior to a site being considered for SC. This process has been summarized in several of the site ESD documents.

Does a source document exist that describes this process in detail?

Refer to the Response Completion Plan for the JBCC (MMR) (Noblis, April 2010) in Google docs.

Please note this in an internal Air Force document and has not been vetted with the regulators.

MassDEP’s policy for evaluating feasibility of reaching background concentrations is detailed in WSC-04-160 which is available on the internet.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

33. We realize that there has been a lot of profile samples collected and boreholes/DPT locations drilled in support of system performance, system optimization, and in addressing general data gaps.

Is a synopsis available tallying the number and depth of DPT locations and the number of profile samples collected during the last few years?

The summary letter reports include the majority of the direct push locations installed during each year. In addition, data provided in the excel spreadsheets include direct push data. Look for locIDs with a “dp”. An updated direct push log has also been uploaded to the Google docs site.

34. Please describe the site specific O&M “Operator” Qualification requirements for site plant operations?

Refer to Section M, Paragraph B 2, Sub-factor 1.3., Attachment 4, and the O&M Plan. The O&M Plan is available in Google docs.

35. Is there a document that defines the requirements for not exceeding set maximum response times when a plant is down? It has been observed that the downtime has often been associated with power and communications failure. How are these shutdowns defined in the requirements?

No, there is no document that defines the requirements for not exceeding set maximum response times when a plant is down. Refer to Section 9.0 in the PWS and the O&M Plan in Google docs.

Response to system downtimes should occur during normal work hours for the treatment plants. Response to the wind turbines and digsafes may occur outside of normal duty hours.

36. It appears that the agencies have informally commented to AFCEC that in their view a few of the remedial systems may need additional action/extraction well field expansion (in addition to standard periodic optimization) to meet projected remedial timeframes noted in the site RODs. Please provide regulatory comments regarding the need to evaluate system operations.

Regulatory comments are either documented in the applicable section of Project Notes or provided in “Response to Comment Letters (RCLs)” and/or “Memorandums of Resolution (MORs)” in response to document review. Applicable documents and comments have been uploaded to Google docs.

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

37. Please provide the site regional and plume-specific groundwater fate and transport models to allow the Contractor to fully evaluate remedial performance and optimization opportunities. This includes the required input and executable files, the simulation reflective of the most current operating condition, the last two most recent plume shells for each plume, and the input/output from the most recent optimization efforts. The inability to access the site groundwater models will preclude the Contractor from fully assessing site conditions and prevent a competitive evaluation of other alternative remedial solution for the sites.

Model files are available as part of a transition package. Due to their file size, the files are saved to a DVD. Interested Contractors should submit their request for the DVD to the CO. Please include a name and mailing address as part of the request.

38. Please provide the results (including model input and output) of the PEST modeling optimization evaluations.

Model files are available as part of a transition package. Due to their file size, the files are saved to a DVD. Interested Contractors should submit their request for the DVD to the CO. Please include a name and mailing address as part of the request.

39. Please provide access to the site database. The inability to access the site data will preclude the Contractor from fully assessing site conditions.

All data from the site database have been included in excel spreadsheets and uploaded to the Google docs website.

In addition, the database is available at JBCCMMR.

Interested Contractors should contact the CO to schedule an appointment.

40. Please provide the GIS database files. The inability to access this documentation will preclude the Contractor from fully assessing site conditions.

GIS files are available as part of a transition package. Due to their file size, the files are saved to a DVD. Interested Contractors should submit their request for the DVD to the CO. Please include a name and mailing address as part of the request.

41. Please provide the results/recommendations of AFCEC ERP-O optimization efforts.

The results/recommendations of AFCEC ERP-O optimization efforts along with the comment response matrix have been uploaded to Google docs.

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

42. Are field demonstrated pump performance (calculating pump curves) required at pump installation? Is there a program to periodically assess pump capacity?

Yes, demonstration of pump performance is required at installation. The Contractor shall be responsible to develop its own program to periodically assess pump capacity.

43. Besides extraction well fouling and the fouling of the Ashumet Valley infiltration trenches and LF- 1 infiltration gallery - has there been any declines in system influent or effluent pipeline performance due to fouling/encrustation or any water conveyance performance issue that required corrective action/maintenance?

Yes, the system pipelines at Ashumet Valley and LF-1 experience fouling that requires shocking the header periodically. Other pipelines may require shocking but it is not as frequent as LF-1 or Ashumet Valley.

The CS-10 southwest infiltration trench capacity has also declined over the years. A recent trenching activity showed excessive tree roots in the header but it is not yet know if this is the cause of the reduced capacity.

44. Please provide a utility map for each site/plume area.

Plumes and systems are located on and off base over a large area of Upper Cape. AFCEC/JBCCMMR does not have access to current utility maps of these areas.

45. Please identify all base and runway imposed working hour limitations.

Working hours are generally 7 am to 5 pm;

however, if additional time is needed, it can be requested. There may be instances where work on the flight line, behind the I gate, and in the Impact Area is restricted due to other activities but there is no set schedule.

46. Will the Contractor be provided an opportunity to review, comment and resolve comments on any Five-Year Review before issuance to the regulators?

Yes

47. Will the Contractor be allowed to lead and negotiate directly with the regulatory agency to achieve its performance objectives, or will the Air Force control the interaction with the regulators and the schedule of any negotiations?

The Contractor can lead the discussions with the regulatory agencies with prior AF approval of the subject matter. The AF is the lead agency for the IRP in the FFA and will need to be present during any and all discussions.

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

48. Based on ongoing VI guidance development – and likely more stringent VI defaults and thresholds – will the contractors be responsible for reevaluating VI if requested by the agencies.

Yes

49. Please confirm that the Target Butt Building is a historic building and can’t be removed.

The Target Butt building is a historic building and cannot be removed.

50. Please identify if the contractor is responsible for all three ranges at the Otis Gun Club. Is the contractor responsible for assessment and/or remediation of the associated range buildings (explosives, asbestos, lead paint, etc.) on/within the footprints of the site boundaries and/or range footprints?

Yes, the Contractor is responsible for all three ranges at the Otis Gun Club.

As part of the MPO, the Contractor is responsible for the assessment of MC within the footprint of the site boundaries.

Remediation of the MC is considered a stretching the MPO. If the Contractor is stretching beyond the MPO and desires to remediate MC of the associated range and range buildings (i.e. high house, low house, etc) within the footprint of the site boundaries, the Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

51. Please explain the coordination and access requirements when working within the controlled antenna field within/near the footprint of the Old K Range.

Coordination will need to be done with the USCG through the Air Force.

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

52. It states that “AF owned property to be maintained in accordance with applicable maintenance requirements.” What are the applicable maintenance requirements for AF owned equipment? Is the contractor responsible for basic maintenance of GFP? For example there are vehicles listed in Enclosure 3, is the contractor only responsible to maintain or repair if necessary?

The Contractor will not be responsible for replenishing the inventory of GFE/GFP at the end of the PBR contract POP.

The Contractor has the option of accepting or declining all, or part of, the GFE/GFP offered by the Government for the JBCCMMR PBR contract.

The Contractor is responsible for the care (including basic maintenance), custody, and control of the accepted GFE/GFP during the contract POP and for replenishing the GFE/GFP as it is used. If the accepted GFE/GFP wears out or breaks during the POP, the Contractor has the option of renting/buying replacement GFE/GFP during the POP to achieve performance objectives.

The Contractor shall be required to manage the disposition of accepted GFE/GFP that is unusable (i.e. broken, no longer needed, etc).

53. While the inventory in Enclosure 3 looks to be very inclusive, it is noted that it does not include many of the necessary parts and equipment for day to day O&M, which is noted in the weekly reports i.e. pumps, motors, VFDs, Modules, and other properly sizes parts for the treatment system and wells listed in the O&M Plan that may need to be replaced or repaired. Please confirm AFCEC’s plan for re-stocking of such supplies prior to the PBR performance period.

AFCEC has no plans for re-stocking GFE/GFP prior to the PBR contract award. Replacement GFE/GFP is included in the current O&M contract; however, these items may be used prior to the PBR contract award.

54. There is an on-going well abandonment program at MMR. Can AFCEC list how many wells are under the Air Force network are potentially scheduled to be abandoned with the POP of the

PBR?

Yes, there is an ongoing well abandonment program at JBCCMMR. As part of a current contract, 100 are planned wells willto be abandoned before July 2014. Approximately 600 other wells are recommended for abandonment.

In addition, all monitoring wells associated with SC sites must be abandoned when SC is achieved.

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

55. In the original Google Docs website AFCEC provided to gain access to the MMR files there was more than 9.5 gigs (3600 files) of data. It is noted that there is another 3 gigs of data that appears to be corrupted (it can be downloaded but not opened). In the newest link provided by AFCEC there is approximately 5.7 gigs (3000 files) of data. Is there a reason why the two data bases appear to have such different content? How is the contractor to know if the files provided are complete? Can a comprehensive list of available documents be provided?

The reduction in size is a result of the deletion of duplicate files.

A listing of the documents included in the database has been uploaded to Google docs.

Please note the listing is updated periodically.

56. Section L - 2.3.10.3 CD Copies. Item ii – Each directory shall contain a MS Word file with the Master TOC for that directory. Please advise if this means 1) that each directory shall contain the TOC for each volume, or 2) if each directory shall contain the Master TOC as is required to be in Volume 1 only.

Section L – 2.3.10.3 has been revised to read, “Each directory shall contain a Microsoft Word file with a Table of Contents for that directory.”

57. Section L 2.3.11.7 Pages Counted. Each page shall be counted except for the following: (c) Executive. Please advise if this supposed to be the Executive Summary.

Yes. This has been revised to read Executive Summary.

58. Section L - 3.1 Volume Organization for Volume 1, item a) Cover Letter. This is not listed in Table

2.2 which states that Offerors shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.2). Please advise if the Cover Letter needs to be added under the Volume 1 items to Table 2.2, and if it will require a tab.

Table 2.2 has been updated.

59. Section L - 3.1 Volume Organization for Volume 1, item i) OCI Analysis and Mitigation Plan. This is listed in Table 2.2 as Organization Conflict of Interest. Are these one in the same document to be submitted? Please advise which is the correct title to be used.

Table 2.2 has been updated.

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

60. Section L - 3.4 Price Information. MS Excel is listed as the software to submit the Milestone Payment Schedule. Please advise what version of MS Excel is required, as it isn’t listed as one of the software products for the electronic copies under 2.3.10.3.

MS Excel would fall under Microsoft Office 2007 as stated in Section L – 2.3.10.3(v)

61. Section L - 3.8 Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent: Letters of Withdrawal. What is meant by Letters of Withdrawal? Please advise if this is a remnant of an old proposal and needs to be deleted from the requirements or if this is something Offerors must provide to be compliant.

Letters of Withdrawal has been removed.

62. Section L - 4.1 Volume Organization for Volume II states the volume shall be organized according to the following general outline. 2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits states the Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.2).

Please advise which set of instructions Offerors are to follow as there is not a one for one between the two sets of instructions.

• Please advise where 4.3 Teaming Agreements should be presented if following 4.1 Volume Organization.

• b) Please advise where the Executive Summary should be presented if following Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.2).

Please follow the outline in Table 2.2. The Executive Summary is part of 4.2 in Table 2.2.

63. Section L - 4.7 Subfactor 1.1: Technical Approach. Please advise if the following items should be presented as attachments to Subfactor 1.1, or if they should be presented as attachments to the overall Volume II.

o Summary Table.

o Post-POP Life Cycle Cost Activities and Assumptions o IMS o MPS without price information

The items listed should be included within Subfactor 1.1.

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

64. Section L - 4.9 Subfactor 1.3: Management Approach, Key Personnel Qualifications and Additional Personnel Qualifications. As the resumes to be provided do not count towards the overall page count for Volume II, and are part of Subfactor 1.3 – Management Approach, please advise if the resumes should be presented as an attachment to Subfactor 1.3 or if they should be presented as an attachment to the overall Volume

II.

Resumes should be included within Subfactor 1.3.

65. Section L - 4.9 Subfactor 1.3: Management Approach, Additional Personnel Qualifications.

Lead Field Technician(s) and Treatment Plant/Wind Turbine Technicians. Is it up to the discretion of the Offeror to decide whether to submit more than one resume for these positions, or is one sufficient? If more than one is submitted how will the resumes be evaluated.

Resumes are required for all key personnel and additional personnel identified in Section L. Please provide more than one resume for these positions, as applicable. The resumes will be evaluated as a composite.

66. Section L - 5.1 Volume Organization for Volume III. Please advise where the Executive Summary and Teaming Agreements should be presented if following Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.2).

Or should Offerors present the proposal information in Tab indexing as outlined in bulleted items for 5.1 Volume Organization?

Please follow the outline in Table 2.2. The Executive Summary and Teaming Arrangements are part of 5.2 in Table 2.2.

67. Section L - 5.3 Past Performance Summary, item (a) Describe the role of the Prime and each team member that will perform on the MMR PBR contract and identify the percentage of the proposed effort each will perform. This information seems out of place; should it be considered part of Volume II, Subfactor 1.3, Management Approach instead?

No. Please provide the information as stated in Section L – 5.3.

68. Section L - 5.5 Past Performance Information Sheets. Please advise if this is the correct heading as 5.5 as listed in Table 2.2 is Past Performance Questionnaire.

Table 2.2 has been revised.

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

69. Section L - 6.1 Volume Organization for Volume IV, item (d) Exceptions, Assumptions, and Rationale. There is no further mention of this information. Please advise if items 6.4 Submission of Schedule B, and 6.5 MPS with Price care considered what comprises item (d) Exceptions, Assumptions, and Rationale? If not, then what information is to be provided?

No Section L - 6.4 Submission of Schedule B, and

6.5 MPS with Price are not what comprises item

(d) Exceptions, Assumptions, and Rationale. If you have any Exceptions and/or Assumptions please include them and your rationale in 6.1.

70. As discussed during the site walk, please confirm that the SCADA and associated computer upgrades for the HATP and other treatment facilities control systems in the Sandwich Road Control Room are not included in the SOW for the

MMR PBR?

The SCADA upgrade is part of the current O&M contract and not part of the PBR. However, if during the course of the 10 year PBR POP, an upgrade is required to meet MPOs, the PBR contractor shall be responsible.

71. Please provide the most recent Five Year Review (draft or final) documents for MMR.

The Final Draft 4th 5 Year review is available on the Google docs website. Some of the recommendations made in the draft document will be addressed as part of the current contract. A document (“Deliverables Summary) listing the deliverables addressing those recommendations has been uploaded to Google docs.

72. Please provide the LF-1 Solar Farm/Solar Array RFP documents including the footprint documents discussed during the site walk so bidders can to assess any impacts to O&M / LTM activities for Site

LF-1.

The NREL feasibility study and the EA have been uploaded to Google docs. Please note the final design/footprint will be established by the developer after the solar contract is awarded.

Also, below is a list of the companies who attended the site visit:

SAK Environmental LLC FPM Remediations

HGL

Watermark

AMEC

Plexus Test America

Performance-Based Remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, MAJoint Base

Arcadis

ECC

Jacobs

CH2M HILL

EA

TRC Environmental Corporation