FA8903-14-R-0001_Final_Solicitation_Questions_and_Responses_2_April_2014.pdf

FINAL SOLICITATION QUESTIONS / RESPONSES

FA8903-14-R-0001

Performance-Based Remediation at the Joint Base Cape Cod, MA 11 March2 April 2014

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

1. Please verify that this PBR does not require the investigation, remediation, or treatment of emerging contaminants such as Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOS), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (perfluorooctane sulfonate) (PFOA), or 1,4-dioxane per Section 8.1.1. of the PWS.

That is correct.

2. The CSE Phase I report for the MMRP sites is no longer listed as an outstanding deliverable in Section 8.1.2 of the PWS; however, the final document is not available on the Google Docs link.

Can the final report be uploaded?

Yes, the final CSE Phase I report has been uploaded to Google docs.

3. Have any new wells been added to the LUCs program since overviewed in the 2012 4th 5-Yr Review?

a) If so, have these wells already been assessed – i. e. assessing well use, demonstrating and documenting that the well is not in the path of the plume (or sampling the well to prove it is not impacted): conducting a risk assessment (if COCs have been detected); and decommissioning any impacted wells and providing an alternative source of water?

b) If so, please provide the associated documentation

The status of 239 non-operational wells at LF-1, AV, CS-4, CS-20, CS-21, FS-28 and FS-29 was re-confirmed in 2013. Four formerly non-operational wells were restarted for outdoor uses; technical evaluations were completed in 2013 for the following wells:

– 2 wells at Ashumet Valley

– 1 well at FS-28

– 1 well at CS-21 Conclusion: No unacceptable exposure risk from the plumes

These wells are documented in the 2013 Annual LUC report dated 28 Feb 2014. The report has been uploaded to Google docs.

In addition, the technical evaluations/ determinations for these wells were included as Appendix D in the Final 4th year Review, which is available on Google docs.

4. We request that AFCEC upload historical aerial photographs to the Google document site.

Historical aerial photographs are available on DVD upon request through 11 Mar 2014. Please contact Linda Cavazos, Thomas Steinman, and Christina Fernandez. Note that you cannot use the photographs/info for profit or make them publically available.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

5. Please specify the scope of work included in the PBR for soil sources within the plumes (e. g. , Area C and F in CS-10)

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

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 and is not part of the PBR contract.

Table 2 long term monitoring sites do not include source areas.

6. We request that the following documents be made available to the contractors:

a) AFCEC. 2013a (in preparation). Decision Document Technical Memorandum.

Prepared by AFCEC/MMR, Installation Restoration Program, Otis Air National Guard Base, MA

b) ______. 2013b (in preparation). Action Memorandum Technical Memorandum.

Prepared by AFCEC/MMR, Installation Restoration Program, Otis Air National Guard Base, MA

c) ______. 2013c (in preparation). Chemical Spill-16/Chemical Spill-17 Technical Memorandum. Prepared by AFCEC/MMR, Installation Restoration Program, Otis Air National Guard Base, MA

d) ______. 2013d (in preparation). Six Area of Concern Technical Memorandum.

Prepared by AFCEC/MMR, Installation Restoration Program, Otis Air National Guard Base, MA

These reports are being prepared to document UU/UE at these sites and are not yet finalized.

There are no impacts from these sites on any of the PBR sites.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

7. Please provide the data/results of the 2012 ethane injection study “Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Pilot Test for EDB.” This includes the field pilot-scale injection system testing conducted between fall of 2012 and winter 2013.

The available Pilot Test reports have been uploaded to Google docs.

8. Are the non-CERCLA actions aimed at remedying the sewage treatment plant plume (principally the phosphorus plume) a component of the actions the contractor is responsible for?

No; however, any CERCLA actions cannot hydraulically affect the phosphorus plume to the point where the permeable reactive barrier is not effective. Nor can the CERCLA actions affect the the USGS tracer test site. Refer to the Final Chemical Spill-10 2007 Southern Trench Technical Memorandum and the Final CS-10 2011 Southern Trench Optimization Project Note in Google docs for more information about addressing hydraulic impacts on these areas.

9. In the CSE Phase I documents, the pictures identified in Appendix D Visual Inspection Photographic Log referenced wetlands associated with the Otis Fish and Game Club. However the CSE: AFRIMS Data said there were no wetlands associated with this site. Please clarify if there are wetlands associated with this site.

There are wetlands associated with the site.

10. We have looked for the “Fire Training Area-2 (FTA-2)/Landfill-2 (LF-2) Remedial Action Report” in both digital and hard copy repositories but can only find Agency Comments and AFCEC responses on this document. Please upload this document on the document site.

The Draft report has been uploaded to Google docs.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

11. In the recent 5-year review, the Agency requested (and AFCEC agreed) to do a Focused Feasibility Study and a ROD amendment for FTA-2, to include a proposed remedy for Groundwater. As a Table 2 site, we assume that preparation of any of the above is not part of the PBR scope, and any work resulting from these documents should be considered outside the scope of the PBR. Please confirm.

The preparation of the FTA-2 Feasibility Study (FS), Proposed Plan (PP), and ROD amendment is being conducted under a current contract. The PBR contractor will be responsible for follow on activities as required in the ROD amendment. The Draft FTA-2 FS has been uploaded to the Google docs website. The Draft PP includes AFCEC’s recommendation for Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) with Land Use Controls (LUCs);

the PP is currently being reviewed by legal.

The MPO is to conduct long term monitoring (MNA and LUCs), which is the anticipated remedy.

12. The Final Evaluation Report Volume II Massachusetts Military Reservation One Cleanup Program, AFCEC Support, October 2012 (URS Group) indicated that OWS 6165 (OW524) is a 2,000-gallon steel OWS with an associated 300-gallon underground holding tank. The status of the OWS is unknown and no information regarding abandonment/inactivation activities are available.

Can AFCEC provide additional information concerning the status of OWS 6165?

All available information is documented in the One Cleanup Report, which is available in Google docs.

13. The Final Evaluation Report Volume II Massachusetts Military Reservation One Cleanup Program, AFCEC Support, October 2012 (URS Group) indicated that Site CD500 Dump Area is located in a heavily wooded area and the underbrush is too overgrown for any debris to be evident. The heavily wooded nature of the site is clearly documented in the site photographs contained in the URS report. Are there any restrictions/prohibitions on clearing this area of trees and/or underbrush for the purposes of sample collection and/or soil removal?

There are no restrictions/prohibitions on clearing the area.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

14. Could AFCEC reconsider the use of prior PPQs being submitted? Section L, Page 22 of 25, 5.7(d) states that Offerors may use previous 772 ESS PBR PPQs as long as the same evaluation questions and ratings are used. It should be noted that we have previous completed 772 ESS PBR PPQs however the first two evaluation criteria are different; “E”

vs. “O” and “AA”, “P” vs. “U”. AFCEC and USACE staff are continually having additional responsibilities added to their workload.

Therefore, if a PPQ was previously submitted in the past that has been acceptable to AFCEC on other PBR procurements, we respectfully request that AFCEC accept the previously submitted PPQ rather than requiring another/duplicate submission.

Only PPQs using the same evaluation questions and ratings may be used.

15. Will AFCEC please identify which if any of the CS-10 recommendations (optimization) noted in the March 2013 Focused Feasibility Study the contractor is responsible to implement.

Scenario 7 is currently being implemented at JBCC.

The work includes construction of the CS-10 system expansion (two new extraction wells, two new reinjection wells, and a mobile treatment unit that is being moved from the Ashumet Valley leading edge treatment system). The PBR contractor will be responsible for post construction activities such as performance monitoring, O&M, etc.

16. General: Is it necessary for the Contractor to include electricity costs in the post-POP life cycle costing? Electrical costs are not included in the

POP.

Yes

17. Please provide the work plan and any other documents drafted to date for the residual risk assessment (Step-2 process) at SD-5.

There have not been any documents prepared that address residual risk assessment at SD-5.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

18. MMRP sites - Our experience at the Impact Area is that installation of Lysimeters and/or the installation of monitoring wells for investigation and LTM has been required by the MassDEP and EPA to evaluate current and potential future leaching of COCs (especially tungsten, lead and explosives) to groundwater. In several instances LTM has been a requirement for several of the ranges; a) Has AFCEC had any discussion on this subject with the regulatory agencies? b) Is there any indication that this will not be a requirement as part of the site investigation/remediation within these MRSs?

AFCEC has not had any discussions with the regulatory agencies regarding investigations at the PBR MMRP sites.

19. MMRP sites – Does the performance objective of the MMRP sites include monitoring of the groundwater wells located within the sites, even though the wells are associated with plumes or areas of low-level contaminant detections that have not been linked to the MMRP site?

The Air Force believes the documentation provided represents the most recent and appropriate documentation available for JBCC and sites identified in this contract. The offeror is solely responsible for reviewing all publicly available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to meet the objectives of this contract. This information is not intended as a substitute for complete analysis of technical data available, nor is it intended to be a guide on how the offeror should address achievement of the performance objectives.

20. MMRP sites – several MMRP sites also encompass potential soil/groundwater contamination associated with current or delisted IRP sites (CS-16/17, Coal yard, Fire Fighter Training Area and CS-10 plume at old Grenade Court; CS-8 and Landfill 03 at Old K Range). Please confirm that any remedial action requirement for these sites will fall under the IRP site and not considered to be part of the required remedial action for the specific MMRP sites.

That is correct.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

21. Otis Target Butt: Vehicles and maintenance equipment were observed within the Target Butt building area during the site visit as well as in photos from the CSE Phase I Report; a) is there plans to continue similar use of this area during the POP? b) Will all materials and equipment be removed for the investigation? c) Will base or facility access be restricted during site investigations?

a.) Yes, there are plans to continue similar use of the area during the POP.

b.) Materials/equipment currently stored at the Target Butt building can be moved to accommodate investigations.

c.) Under routine/normal conditions, base or facility access will not be restricted during site investigations.

22. Ordnance Area 1: Sealant drums/5-gallon pails were observed in this area which are not associated with munitions; will removal/handling of the content of these drums be considered part of the MMRP effort or will it be considered as a separate IRP site for purpose of site investigation and remediation?

The drums/pails will be handled as a separate IRP site. The area where the drums/pails were dumped is part of the CD500 Dump Area PA/SI in Table 1.

23. Ordnance Area 1: Was a MEC clearance (to depth) completed before construction of the running track?

No

24. Ordnance Area 1: Please clarify that the sites at Ordnance Area 1 includes the bare areas along the southwest boundary as shown in the 1955 aerial photograph.

The area within the blue boundary of the 1955 aerial photograph encompasses the potential site.

25. Small Arms Range: It is our understanding that the regulatory agencies have determined that lead and other metals associated with small arms ranges have potential to leach to groundwater, as was demonstrated at the Impact Area at MMR.

Please confirm that the contractor is responsible to assess and demonstrate no leaching threat and to conduct LTM if warranted as has been required as a components of decision documents for several SARs in the Impact Area.

The Air Force believes the documentation provided represents the most recent and appropriate documentation available for JBCC and sites identified in this contract. The offeror is solely responsible for reviewing all publicly available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to meet the objectives of this contract. This information is not intended as a substitute for complete analysis of technical data available, nor is it intended to be a guide on how the offeror should address achievement of the performance objectives.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

26. Old K Area: Our review of documents indicate that 32 items requiring blow-in-place were identified during clearance of less than 0.1% of the site’s total area during construction of the treatment plant at the J-2 site. Are there any other documents available that may provide a more complete understanding of the MEC density at the site?

All applicable documents have been loaded on Google docs.

27. Old K Area – There is a fair amount of inconsistency within the site historical and investigation reports regarding munitions found in this area. Can AFCEC confirm any report indicating that 40 mm projectiles were used at this site? Is there any report detailing sampling data collected at the small arms and rocket berms?

All applicable documents have been loaded on Google docs.

28. Former Bomb Storage: Was any clearance performed prior to construction of the current structures/parking area at the site?

Unknown.

29. Otis Fish and Game Club – Based on the site walk and information presented in site documentation it appears that some of the debris located at this site is not associated with MMRP related activities (e.g., presence of cultural debris, etc.). Please confirm if remedial activity for the site will need to include removal of non-MMRP related debris and contamination.

Remedial activity for the site does not include removal of non-MMRP related debris and contamination.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

30. Otis Fish and Game Club – Are there site-specific environmental restrictions that would likely preclude or greatly hamper physical restoration of the wetland if the contractor were to remove any potentially identified lead (and possibly PAH) contamination?

The Air Force believes the documentation provided represents the most recent and appropriate documentation available for JBCC and sites identified in this contract. The offeror is solely responsible for reviewing all publicly available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to meet the objectives of this contract. This information is not intended as a substitute for complete analysis of technical data available, nor is it intended to be a guide on how the offeror should address achievement of the performance objectives.

31. Former Bomb Storage Area – Are there any restrictions at this site stemming from proximity to JBCC runway or presence of extensive utilities that may impede required investigation and/or remedial action at the site?

AFCEC has uploaded the available utility drawings for this area. Note that gas and communications are not available. The contractor will need to work with base security for access to this area and will also need to complete a digsafe notification prior to any intrusive activities.

32. Skeet Range – Please confirm if re-planting of plants and shrubs will be required by JBCC as part of the restoration for this area?CS-20: Will AFCEC be responsible for negotiating the access required to address the downgradient migration of the plume’s leading edge?

Skeet Range – Yes, restoration is part of environmental work.

CS-20 – yes, AFCEC will be responsible for negotiating access.

33. From what we have read, some sites have required 100% survey and significant amounts of verification digs. Is there a guidance document indicating the procedures for conducting geophysical surveys and clearances that has been approved by the regulators?

There is no guidance document available.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

34. Section L, Page 7 of 25. 2. 3. 10. 3 General requirements (a). All electronic copies shall be submitted on CD-ROM in a flexible plastic protective sleeve. Protective sleeves shall be hole-punched with a standard 2-hole punch at the top of each sleeve. Upon submittal, are the protective sleeves to be placed inside of a binder volume copy or should they be submitted separately outside of a binder volume copy?

The protective sleeves should be placed inside of the applicable binder volume copy.

35. Section L, Page 8 of 25. 2. 3. 10. 3 (b) Master copy CD-ROM requirements. Under Table 2. 2 Proposal Organization, the number of CD copies required per volume is listed.

a) For the Volumes 1-4 CD copies, are Offeror’s to follow the instructions under

2. 3. 10. 3 (a) General requirements and in addition provide a Master CD for each volume following the instructions under 2.

3. 10. 3 (b)?

b) Do the Master CDs need to be in protective sleeves that are 2-hole punched at the top?

c) Section L, Pg. 10 of 25. 2.4 Distribution. Do the Master CDs get mailed or hand carried to the POC, Linda Cavazos along with the originals, copies, and CDs of Volume 1, 3, and 4?

a) Yes

b) Yes

c) All of the Master CDs should be delivered to the Contracting Officer, Ms. Linda Cavazos.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

36. Section L, Page 9 of 25. 2. 3. 11. 5 Post POP LCC with Activities and Assumptions shall be submitted on 11x17, has no page limitations and is excluded from the page count. If any other text other than the cost estimate is provided in these pages, they will be counted against the page count. Section L, Page 17 of 25, 4. 7 Subfactor 1. 1: Technical Approach, 5. iv. Detailed activities and assumptions must be provided and broken out by site, fiscal year, and milestones.

a) Please advise how Offeror’s are to provide activities and assumptions as well as the cost estimate “if any other text other than the cost estimate is provided in these pages, they will be counted against the page count.”

b) Please advise if Offeror’s are to provide an electronic MS Excel 2007 file of the Post POP LCC with Activities and Assumptions for the Volume 2 Master CD, as well as for the Volume 2 CD copies?

a) The activities and assumptions for the Post-POP Life Cycle Costs are considered part of the cost estimate and would not be considered against the page count.

b) The Post-POP Life Cycle Costs do not need to be provided in MS Excel 2007, but should be included in the Master Copy and Volume 2 CD copies.

37. Section L, Page 17 of 25, 4. 7, 5 iv. The note item states, Note: The Offeror shall not provide the total LCC in the technical volume. The Government will compute the total LCC by adding the post-POP LCC and the proposed price under Factor 3.

Please advise if this is to mean that offerors are to only submit the POST-POP LIFE-CYCLE COST ESTIMATE WITH ACTIVITIES AND ASSUMPTIONS in Volume 2 and that the LCC Cost information will be provided as part of Volume 4.

Offerors are only to submit Post-POP Life Cycle Costs with activities and assumptions in Volume 2.

Total life cycle costs are not required in any volume.

38. Section L, Page 13 of 25. 3. 10 Model Contract (b)(1). Does the “original” signed copy of the Model Contract need to be printed as instructed under 2. 3. 10. 1 “Original” Unbound Proposal, hole-punched with standard 2-hole punch and printed head-to-foot?

Yes

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

39. Section L, Page 17 of 25, 4. 7 Subfactor 1. 1:

Technical Approach, 6. Please advise if Offeror’s are to provide an electronic MS Project 2007 file of the Integrated Master Schedule for the Volume 2 Master CD, as well as for the Volume 2 CD copies?

Yes

40. Section L, Page 18 of 25, 4. 7 Subfactor 1. 1:

Technical Approach, 7. Please advise if Offerors are to provide an electronic MS Excel 2007 file of MPS without cost information for the Volume 2 Master CD, as well as for the Volume 2 CD copies?

Yes

41. Section L, Page 22 of 25, 5. 9 Client Authorization Letters. Please advise if Offerors are to provide Client Authorization Letters for all present/past performance information from any client (federal, commercial, etc.) or only if the client is a commercial client.

Client Authorization Letters are only required for contacting commercial customers.

42. Attachment 1E1 – PWS Enclosure 1. Should the site listing for the LCC, the Technical Summary Table, the IMS and MPS follow this listing for the 27 sites?

The life cycle costs, Technical Summary Table, IMS, and MPS should all be broken out by site and follow the site listing in Attachment L-6.

43. In some instances the site specific name is listed differently in Attachments 1A and 1B versus Attachment 1E1-PWS Enclosure 1. For example, OW524: OWS6165 (as found in Attachment 1A) vs.

OW524: OW-C524 OWS 6165 (as found in Attachment 1E1 – PWS Enclosure 1). Please advise which listing offerors should use for the site names.

Please use OW524: OWS6165

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

44. For several of the plume models listed in Table A-1 of the Draft Transition Package Project Note (PN), there are no NAM files provided for any of the models to indicate the combination of input files used generate the results presented in the corresponding technical notes (TN) and PNs with the exception of PEST simulations for LF1/CS23. In addition, the input files provided by the government for some models generate output that are inconsistent with the results presented in the corresponding TN/PN based on visual comparisons, including LF-1/CS-23, CS10 and others. For all base case scenarios, it is impossible verify whether the modeling files are correct as no output files are provided. The inability to verify that the provided groundwater models represent the latest and greatest will preclude the Contractor from fully assessing site conditions and prevent a competitive evaluation of other alternative remedial solutions for the sites. Please provide the following digital information for all models listed in Table A-1 of the Draft Transition Package PN: 1) NAM files for each of the simulations represented in each TN/PN; 2) head save files (HDS) for all of the flow simulations; and

3) concentration files (CON) for all of the transport simulations.

NAM files are a summary of input files used in Modflow 2000.

LF-1/CS-23 PEST modeling is the only modeling done with modflow 2000 and those NAM files were provided in the transition package.

HDS and CON files are deleted after animations are created because they are no longer needed.

The offerors have the option of establishing baseline conditions using the models provided.

The Government confirms that the most current versions of the groundwater models and input files that are in the incumbent contractor’s possession have been provided by the Government and are located on the Google site that is listed on Enclosure 2 of the solicitation or in the Transition Package DVD that was accessible and mailed to all requesting offerors.

The files provided include the most recent model input files (2009 and later) for the Ashumet Valley plume that are in the incumbent contractor’s possession. It is noted that the most recent fate and transport modeling for the Ashumet Valley plume was completed in 2008/2009 by Jacobs Engineering Group (JEG), Inc., as documented in the Final Record of Decision for the Ashumet Valley Groundwater (June 2009).

Neither the Government nor the incumbent contractor is in possession of those fate and transport model input files prepared by JEG. Fate and transport modeling for this site has not been updated since 2009 because remediation is progressing as expected.

Regarding the comment that there is a discrepancy of model output and report depictions, the Government has confirmed that the model input files provided for the LF-1/CS-23 and CS- 10 groundwater models are consistent with those used to generate the output reported in the corresponding reports.

In addition, the Government has provided all modeling utilities that have been developed under contract by the incumbent contractor that are used for post-processing the model output. Offerors will not be penalized if there are discrepancies in their output results compared with the reported results. Rather, offerors should use the model output results they do get to demonstrate their understanding of the conceptual site model and generate the quantitative performance models per Section L Paragraph 4.7 and Section M Subfactor 1.1 based on their output. Offerors also have the option to rebaseline the model as previously stated in the response to this question. As noted in Section L Paragraph 4.7, the models will be refined during the development of the OES plan post-award.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

45. Regarding O&M for the wind turbines (Section 8.1.1) please provide a copy of the current contractors AFCEC SOW to ensure a proper level of effort is bid for “minor repairs”.

The SOW states O&M includes repairs of treatment systems and wind turbines. It is not specific to the types of 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. Review the weekly logs provided on Google docs for additional information.

46. Section 8.1.2 of the Performance Work Statement (Transition of Work) states that CH2MHill's existing Task Order includes deliverables responding to action items identified in the 5-Year Review. Please identify which deliverables listed in Table 1-4 of the 5-Year Review will NOT be completed by CH2MHill and would therefore be the responsibility of the PBR Contractor.

The deliverables in Table 1-4 that will not be completed by CH2M Hill include:

(1) reassessing the soil data for UU/UE at CS- 10/FS-24 Details C&F; however, this is not part of the PBR contract

(2) continued ecological monitoring at LF-1/CS-23 wetlands/vernal pools.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

47. If remedial work is required as an outcome of any of the 5-Year Review action item deliverables that CH2MHill is currently preparing (and therefore are not available for bidder review), is that work part of the PBR contract SOW? If so, can AFCEC provide a description of the work to be performed so that bidders can provide an accurate price?

Yes, the work that comes out of the 5 year review action items currently being addressed by CH2M Hill is part of the PBR for the sites listed in Tables 1 and 2. Several of these documents have been posted in draft and final, if available, on the Google docs website.

The CS-10 ESD is documenting the change in the remedial system, the plume mass/volume, and the restoration timeframe. The changes to the aquifer restoration timeframe are beyond the PBR POP so this is not an issue. The changes in plume mass/volume and the remedial system are documented in reports (project notes and tech memos) that are available on Google docs. The Draft CS-10 ESD has been uploaded to Google docs. Note it is currently being reviewed by legal and has not yet been reviewed by the regulators.

The LF-1/CS-23 ESD is not necessary since additional modeling has resulted in similar aquifer restoration timeframes as what is reported in the ROD.

The PFSA and FTA-2 CERCLA documents (Feasibility Studies [FS], Proposed Plans [PPs], and ROD amendments) are being done to amend the existing soil RODs to include the groundwater component. The draft FS for both sites has been uploaded to Google docs. The draft PPs are in legal review. In both cases, AFCEC is recommending monitored natural attenuation with land use controls. The PBR contractor will be responsible for follow on activities as required in the ROD amendment.

The FS-12 ESD is documenting the change in the aquifer restoration timeframe which is beyond the POP of the PBR.

The Draft FS-12 ESD is not yet available. The SD-5 ESD is documenting the change in the aquifer restoration timeframe from 2008 to 2022. The Draft SD-5 ESD has been uploaded to Google docs.

The other CERCLA documents for CY-2 and SD-4 are not an issue as these sites are not included in the PBR.

48. Within Section L, 4.7, #4, please clarify what is meant by “returning the cleaned up landfill to productive use”. How will the response to this question be evaluated as part of the contractor selection process?

Amendment 2 will be issued next week to remove this requirement from the RFP and will not be a consideration in the contractor selection process.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

49. Geoprobe profiling work – please provide the recent (last few years) results of “scouting” work done with the Geoprobe. What is the profiling methodology being employed in the field (e.g. field screening with a PID, laboratory sampling of profile intervals, MiP, etc.)

The Geoprobe has been used to collect soil borings and groundwater samples (vertical profiling and setting permanent monitoring well screens).

Direct push results are included in numerous reports and data available on Google docs.

50. Please provide the year/make/model of the Geoprobe unit and the total number of hours on the machine.

The Geoprobe is a 2003 6620DT model with 1874 number of hours.

51. Per Section 7.5 of the PWS, is demolition required? If so, please provide the specific scope of demolition activity to be performed.

Demolition may be required to meet the performance objectives proposed. The Air Force believes the documentation provided represents the most recent and appropriate documentation available for JBCC and sites identified in this contract. The offeror is solely responsible for reviewing all publicly available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to meet the objectives of this contract. This information is not intended as a substitute for complete analysis of technical data available, nor is it intended to be a guide on how the offeror should address achievement of the performance objectives.

52. Please provide clarification on well abandonment required within the POP. The statement “All Sites: Properly abandon monitoring wells no longer needed” was removed from the final RFP within Table 2 – Performance Objective with no Stretch Goals.

If wells are damaged and pose a threat to the groundwater, they should be abandoned or repaired if needed. If any sites are closed during the POP, applicable monitoring wells should be abandoned.

53. Please provide the estimated number of extraction wells to be redeveloped within the POP.

Refer to the well maintenance schedules on Google docs.

54. Please define the threshold of a major repair of the wind turbines (I.e. labor effort and/or materials).

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.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

55. Please provide a list of maintenance records for the wind turbines for the last several years.

The maintenance records have been uploaded to Google docs. Refer to the weekly/monthly inspections for additional information; they are also available in Google docs.

56. Is there a current list of the type of carbon employed at each active system?

Refer to the GAC service tracking log that has been uploaded to Google docs.

57. Based on the 2013 Evaluation of Coconut Shell GAC, it was determined that virgin coconut shell GAC is more cost effective for use in the treatment systems. Since the release of the 2013 report, has the decision been made to rebed all GAC units in all treatment systems with virgin coconut shell GAC during the next applicable change out? If so, please indicate which systems have been rebedded with the virgin coconut shell GAC and which systems are scheduled to be changed.

Some vessels were rebedded with virgin coconut shell GAC but not all. Refer to the GAC service tracking log that has been uploaded to Google docs.

58. Are there any existing follow-up reports to the July 2013 Carbon Optimization Study including comments or responses from AFCEC or additional data generated from continued analysis of the coconut carbon already installed?

No, there were no follow up studies. Refer to the carbon exchange frequency file and the GAC service tracking log which are both available in Google docs.

59. As discussed in Project Note 006 issued on 3/27/12, we would like to request a copy of the GAC Regeneration Plot Test referenced in section

4.5 and all MMR GAC system optimization projects undertaken by CH2MHill to date referenced in section 4.6.

The documents for the GAC optimization projects are available in Google docs.

60. Please provide field O&M log sheets for the last year, to review labor and activities associated with system maintenance activities for all treatment system sites.

The O&M log sheets have been uploaded to Google docs.

61. Please provide the last two year’s inventory of treatment system waste shipments. For example, back-wash waste. Also, please provide the associated analytical results from the waste.

The requested information has been uploaded to Google docs.

62. Regarding IDW procedures, is purge water containerized for disposal or disposed of in the associated system (for sites with systems).

Purge water is containerized and treated through the GAC system at the Contractor Staging Area located next to West Truck Road.

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

63. Is there a charge for bringing waste/recyclables (fluorescent tubes, batteries, used oil, etc.) to the Coast Guard transfer station?

Not as of March 2014.

64. Per the July 2013 O&M Manual-Final, “The O&M CMMS is Datastream Maintenance Professional 2.0 for Microsoft Access 2000.

(MP2®). MP2 is used to organize and track inventory, track equipment history, schedule maintenance tasks, allocate resources, generate work orders, track work order closure, and requisition parts. The software requires an annual maintenance renewal. The program files are located in the AFCEC server.” Will we have access to reports from the Computer Maintenance Management System (CMMS) during the time we are preparing our bid? Specifically, can AFCEC provide the CMMS maintenance schedule?

The maintenance schedule has been uploaded to Google docs.

65. Have there been unforeseen costs associated with adjustments made under the Demand Response Program for peak electricity demand events (e.g., labor costs for weekend shutdowns)? Will any reduction in the contractor’s ability to achieve [performance payment triggers] due to shut downs/slowdowns under the Demand Response Program be taken into account?

There have been no significant adjustments required for the demand response program.

Curtailment calls are typically made during early to mid-afternoon in the summer when it is very hot.

To-date, there have been no calls on weekends.

To-date, there has been one call in the winter time at between 5-6 pm as a result of a power plant failure. O&M staff had gone home for the day.

One person returned to shut down the systems and left them off until the next work day. There will not be a reduction in the contractor’s ability to achieve performance payment triggers as a result of demand-related shutdowns.

66. Is there any delayed system or building maintenance that has not been performed during the current POP and that will become necessary during the upcoming POP?

Routine maintenance and housekeeping have been performed as part of the O&M contracts. In addition to the routine activities, the most current contract includes the following:

- scada upgrades; vehicle repairs and/or routine maintenance for the F350, F550, Jeep, and the Bobcat; DOT inspections of vehicles and trailers; remove and/or trim back all trees/vegetation located along the access roads (including the entire length of the LF-1 access road), around all system fences, along infiltration galleries, and around the landfill fence; sand and repaint all gates, vault covers, MCCs, rusted areas on frac tanks, etc; replace signs if needed; clean all treatment system buildings and admin facilities with a power wash; replace windows and doors in Building 1748; fix/replace floor tiles in Building 1748 as necessary; fix asphalt shingles on AFCEC sheds inside the contractor staging area; fix loose siding on all AFCEC buildings;

remove extraneous signs from treatment systems and parking areas;

remove unused AFCEC gates; remove old treatment system infrastructure (well vaults and pipeline) associated with LF-2/FTA-2 SVE site on the flight line; install gate at FS-1 (one of the unused gates can be used for this purpose); repair/replace damaged fencing and gates at FS-12; rebuild isolation discs from the Elin generator in the Fuhrlaender wind turbine; replace faulty smoke detectors as needed;

inspect/clean/repair HVAC systems at O&M, SRTF, FS-12 and Building 1748; repair/maintain overhead garage doors at O&M building and all treatment systems; repair small leaks in stainless steel piping at CS-10 In Plume, SRTF, and FS-12; repair roof leaks at Building 1748, FS-12 and SRTF; repair grounding on roof at FS-12 and SRTF; grade the FS-1 dirt road leading to the treatment plant;

inspect/repair/adjust all locks on doors of treatment plants and admin buildings; replace approximately six 480 volt transient voltage surge suppressors at treatment plants and MCCs;fix damage (holes) at FS-28 treatment plant; cap decommissioned line in vac skid building at FS- 28; remove all down hole piping, motors, and pumps from approximately 18 no longer used extraction wells; place in inventory if useable; scrap if not usable; update inventory to include used pumps/motors; repair spalling concrete step at HATF; seal cracks in wind turbine foundations; place gravel at Fuhrlaender wind turbine;

repair four (4) VFDs, fifteen (15) MOD30s, and two (2) backplanes;

restock spare parts/equipment Any additional repairs, maintenance, etc that comes up during the PBR POP is the responsibility of the contractor.

67. Please provide the complete Comprehensive Long Term Monitoring Plan. We have some of the well network tables pulled from this document which were in the google docs ‘CLTMP’ file and updated as of early 2013, however this only includes the well names and sampling frequency on most sites. Please provide the full analytical scope and methods for each site. Additionally, the well tables for FS-10/FS-11 were absent from the Google docs site. If the CLTMP does not provide sampling methodology, please provide the most current sampling plan or equivalent for each site in order to determine this.

Sampling plans for plumes/treatment systems are included in the CLTMP, O&M Plan, and in site specific project notes that adjust monitoring well networks. The QAPP provides additional information on analytical methods. These documents are provided in Google docs.

FS-10/FS-11 are known collectively as PFSA. Refer to the PFSA LTM plan, which is available in Google docs.

68. The Aug 2013 Summary of Well Abandonment Candidates lists monitoring wells for abandonment, some needing repair and maintenance. Should we assume these wells will need repair/reconstruction by the contractor during the POP, or has some of this work already been performed in the last calendar year?

If wells are damaged and pose a threat to the groundwater, they should be abandoned or repaired if needed. If any sites are closed during the POP, applicable monitoring wells should be abandoned.

69. Multiple sites require an ESD in 2013/2014 that may potentially include LUCs. If these ESDs are produced at the end of the current contract term, will the new contractor be required to submit LUCIPs as needed or are the LUCIPs already contracted to the incumbents?

LUCIPs are included in the current contract.

During the PBR POP, if new LUCIPs are needed or LUCIPs need to be revised, that will be the responsibility of the PBR contractor.

70. Please provide a copy of the draft 2013 summary reports for all the treatment system O&M sites

The Draft 2013 Summary Letter Reports are currently in preparation. They will be uploaded to Google docs as they become available.

71. Please provide a copy of any 2013 optimization reports for the O&M sites

All of the optimization related documents have been uploaded to Google docs.

72. Please provide current 2013-2014 updated P&IDs and as-built drawings for each remediation system

Available upon request; however requests must be received no later than Friday, 14 March 2014, at

2:00 PM.

73. Have the plume maps for each site been updated with 2013 groundwater data? If so, please provide.

No, the plume maps are updated as needed based on changes in the field data. The most current plume maps are available in individual documents that are in Google docs. The most current all plume map is also available in Google docs.

74. Please provide copies of the daily O&M sheets which are produced by the treatment system operators for each system for 2013 and the 1stQtr 2014 as applicable

The O&M log sheets have been uploaded to Google docs.

75. Section 8.1.1 of the PWS (Scope Discussion and Limits) indicates that the Contractor shall not be responsible for remediation and treatment of emerging contaminants unless otherwise specified. Please confirm whether or not this exclusion includes 1-4 dioxane and/or perflourinated compounds. Also, please confirm that the Contractor is not responsible for any investigation, characterization, or delineation activities associated with such emerging compounds.

Both 1,4-dioxane and perfluorinated compounds (PFC) are considered to be emerging contaminants and are therefore excluded from the PBR. The contractor is not responsible for any investigation, characterization, or delineation activities associated with the emerging contaminants.

76. Regarding LF-1, please provide the land use controls (LUCs) that apply to the landfill.

The LUCs are included in the 2007 ROD and the 2013 ESD, both of which are available in Google docs.

77. Regarding LF-1, please provide the January 2014 optimized modeling results presented at Technical Update meeting

The presentation and the modeling results from the Jan 2014 tech update meeting are available in Google docs.

78. Regarding SD-5, the ROD projected closure in 2008, and the ESD was to be prepared in 2013-14 to extend this timeframe since TCE was still persistent but non-migrating. Please provide the draft ESD if available to obtain the new timeframe for closure.

The Draft SD-5 ESD is available in Google docs.

The ESD extended the restoration timeframe from 2008 to 2022.

79. Regarding CS-4, site closure is projected within the next POP (2017) but ESD requires a residual risk assessment and feasibility of achieving background. Have these been already generated by the incumbent contractor? If so, can they be provided?

No, this information has not been generated by the incumbent contractor.

80. Regarding CS-10, the Installation Restoration Program PBR Overview (13 August 2013) PowerPoint document states that an ESD documenting updated CSM will be prepared in 2013/2014. Please provide a draft or final version of this document, if it has been prepared.

The Draft CS-10 ESD has been uploaded to Google docs. Note it is currently being reviewed by legal and has not yet been reviewed by the regulators.

81. There is reference in many documents to the fact that the CS-10 plume is expanding, no longer delineated, and has higher source area concentrations. Can the government supply any details such as meeting notes with the regulators and/or public from 2013 and/or early 2014 related to additional work that may be planned or already committed to that has not yet occurred?

There are several documents available in Google docs that discuss this situation with CS-10. Refer to the site-specific Tech Update presentations, the Tech Memo (Focused Feasibility Study for Remedial System Optimization) and the Draft ESD.

82. Regarding CS-10, have there been supplemented investigatory and/or delineation work performed in 2013? If so, can the government provide either draft reports and/or draft data for review?

There are several documents available in Google docs that discuss this situation with CS-10. Refer to the site-specific Tech Update presentations, the Tech Memo (Focused Feasibility Study for Remedial System Optimization) and the Draft ESD.

83. Regarding FS-10/FS-11, the ROD for these sites did not address groundwater, however, FFS being issued in 2014 will establish GW COCs and RAOs.

Please provide the draft of FFS if available to have an idea of proposed remedy and LOE needed for these sites.

The Draft PFSA FS has been uploaded to Google docs.

84. Regarding FS-12, although the closure goal is distant (2030), the ESD to be prepared in 2013-14 would adjust this timeframe. Please provide the ESD if available.

The ESD is not yet available.

85. Regarding FS-13, the site requires DPT every 5 years in order to sample GW at various profiles.

What are the anticipated termination depths and number of profile samples requested per location for groundwater monitoring?

Refer to the FS-13 2011 Field Investigation document in Google docs.

86. Regarding FS-29, which was formerly attached to the Hunter Ave Treatment Facility, the plume does not have extraction wells currently in use.

Has the government entered into any agreements regarding periodic inspection/testing of these wells and/or has the government agreed to abandonment?

No

87. Regarding CS-4, which is currently attached to Hunter Ave Treatment Facility, there are references in several documents (e.g., Sept 2011:

Final Chemical Spill-4 2010 Remedial System Optimization Technical Memorandum) to contaminant transport animations that were available on CD. Are these available for review?

The files have been uploaded to Google docs.

88. Have optimizations been performed for CS-23 or LF-1 treatment systems at the Hunter Ave Treatment Facility? If so, can the government supply a summary of these optimizations?

The optimizations that have been completed for the plumes/plants are available on Google docs either as documents or as presentations to the regulators during tech update meetings.

89. Regarding Ashumet Valley Treatment Facility, Figures and Tables were not included in the 2009 Final ROD. Please provide all these attachments for review.

The attachments have been uploaded to Google docs.

90. Regarding Ashumet Valley Treatment Facility, it is our understanding that Building B was removed from service in 2007 and NSTAR removed the fuses and meter in 2012. Are the remedial system components still present within the building? Does this building require demolition and/or any other equipment removal?

Yes, the remedial system components are still present in the building. No, the building will not require demolition or other equipment removal within the scope of the PBR.

91. Regarding Ashumet Valley Treatment Facility, have the carbon vessels been rebedded at the AVMTU plant (also known as AV Leading Edge ETD)? If the carbon has been changed, please provide details as to frequency and date off last change out.

No, the carbon has not been changed at the AV MTU treatment plant. The system has been shut down on an interim basis (refer to related project note that was uploaded to Google docs). The MTU is being moved on base for use in the CS-10 treatment system expansion. Per the project note, if the trigger point concentration is reached, the PBR contractor will be required to restart the AV leading edge system and will need to supply a treatment unit and connect it.

92. Regarding the FS-12 Treatment System, what is the status of the pilot test and bromide tracer testing conducted for in-situ enhanced bioremediation? Please provide a copy of the pilot test results and a draft copy of the pilot test completion report, if available.

Refer to the available Pilot Test reports that have been uploaded to Google docs.

93. Regarding the FS-12 Treatment System, was the evaluation of the operation of EW31 and core of the plume conducted? If so, please provide the evaluation results.

Yes, refer to the Project Note entitled “FS-12 2013 ETR Optimization Approach” which is available on Google docs

94. Regarding the FS-12 Treatment System, was an ESD prepared in 2013/2014 for the restoration timeframe in the ROD? If the ESD is currently in draft, please provide a copy.

The ESD is not yet available.

95. It is our understanding that the FS-12 remediation building also houses the J-3 remediation system which is operated by IAGWSP and that these systems share a common effluent holding tank and reinjection wells.