Fairchild_Draft_RFP_and_Site_Visit_-_Questions_and_Responses.pdf

DRAFT RFP and SITE VISIT QUESTIONS / RESPONSES

FA8903-14-R-0004

Fairchild Air Force Base PBR

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

DRAFT RFP

1. Has the AF determined whether this will be a SB set-aside? The statement in the RFP, p. 23 of 49 (copied below) is unclear: Decision regarding the issuance of the Solicitation FA8903-13-R-0060, Fairchild Air Force Base Performance Based Remediation (PBR) under a 100% Small Business Set-Aside. The Government intends to award a single contract from this solicitation utilizing tradeoff procedures.

This is a 100% Small Business Set-Aside. RFP has been updated to reflect this information.

2. Please provide a Word or Excel version of Section B.

A Word or Excel version will not be provided.

3. Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents: Page 3, Table 2.2, Proposal Organization for Volume I

– Please confirm there is no page limit on Volume I, including the Executive Summary.

There is no page limit on Volume I.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

4. Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents: Page 3, Table 2.2, Proposal Organization for Volume I and Page 14, Section 3.10, Model Contract –

a. The instructions on page 14 state that in Volume I the offeror is to provide a signed copy of the Model Contract (Sections A through J). Section B is Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs.

Page 6, Section 2.3.4, Price Information states that pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal Volume (Volume IV) and there is a specific tab in Volume IV for Submission of Section B.

I am assuming that the Model Contract tab should only include Section A (SF33) and Sections C through K.

b. The Model Contract is to be provided without any punched holes. Is this document to be provided in an envelope in the binder of the original copy of the proposal? Is the offeror required to provide a tab for this within the ORIGINAL binder?

c. Section 3.10.1, Representations and Certifications – Is a signed copy of the reps and certs to be provided without any punched holes?

d. Section 3.10.2, Attachments to the Model Contract – Please confirm the offeror is not required to include copies of these attachments in our proposal.

A) Section 2.3.4 has been revised.

B) Instructions regarding the Model Contract have been updated. Please refer to Section L 2.3.10.1 and 3.10.

C) Instructions regarding Reps and Certs have been updated. Please refer to Section L 3.10.1

D) Offeror is not required to include copies of these attachments.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

5. Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents: Page 15, Section 4.4, General –

a. The offeror is required to complete the “Proposed Minimum Performance Objectives” column in Attachment 1A

– Table 1. Attachment 1A – Table 1 did not have a column for the proposed minimum objectives. I assume we just add a column to Table 1.

b. We request that Table 1 be excluded from the page count.

A) The following statement has been removed from Section L: “The Contractor is required to complete the “Proposed Minimum Performance Objectives” column in Attachment 1A – Table 1. “

B) Table 1 is no longer required and therefore does not affect the page count.

6. Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents: Page 4, Table 2.2, Proposal Organization for Volume II and Page 15, Section 4.5, Technical Risk – We understand the offeror does not provide any text in that section of the proposal. Are we to just provide a tab?

Table 2.2, ITO Paragraph Number 4.5 has been updated to reflect “No submittal/tab required”.

7. Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents: Page 4, Table 2.2, Proposal Organization for Volume II and Page 15, Section 4.6, Proposal Requirement Specifications – Please provide additional guidance on what the Air Force expects to see behind this tab.

Section 4.6 provides Proposal Requirement Specifications. A submittal under this section is not required.

8. Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents: Page 4, Table 2.2, Proposal Organization for Volume II

– The PBR includes 60 sites. We request that the page limitation be increased to at least 100 single-sided (50 double-sided) pages such that we have sufficient space to provide our Plan A and Plan B for each site. This increase in the page limit assumes that the offerors Table 1 is excluded from the page count and the offeror is not required to provide any information in response to Section 4.6.

Page count will be increased to 100 pages.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

9. Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents: Page 4, Table 2.2, Proposal Organization for Volume II and Page 18-19, Section 4.9, Technical Subfactor 1.3: Management Approach

a. The Management Approach is 8 single-sided pages. We understand the page limitation, may we double side the Management Approach in the original and hard copies.

b. We request the page count for the Management Approach be increased to 10 single sided pages. An additional requirement for a discussion on managing and tracking the government furnished equipment and property is a new requirement in this PBR that we have not seen in previous PBRs.

a. Management Approach remains 8 single sided pages

b. Management Approach remains 8 single sided pages

10. Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents: Page 20, Section 4.10, Subfactor 1.4: Corporate Experience This section states that five projects are required and that three of the five must be from the Prime Contractor or a Teaming Partner with a formal teaming agreement.

This statement seems to indicate that the prime contractor is not required to show any experience performing work similar to what is required under the PBR. Is this the correct interpretation of this statement? I would think that all the projects must be from the Prime or a Teaming Partner, but at least three projects should be from the Prime.

Section L, Section 4.10, has been revised to reflect -three of the five projects must be from the Prime contractor.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

11. Attachment L-6: Supplemental Instruction to Offerors for the Development of Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structures/Milestone Payment Schedule (MPS)/Integrated Master Schedule (IMS):

Page 2, Milestone Payment Section - The third paragraph of this section states: “The AF will not pay for drafts on every deliverable, but on a case by case basis such as for significant reports (e.g., RI, FS, ROD/DD, etc) and/or more complex site work plans.” We request that statement be deleted from the instructions. In general, as the Air Force knows, under PBR contracting, payments are only associated with discrete deliverables while a continuum of services is provided. As a result, it is unrealistic to evaluate the specific value of each discrete deliverable with the intrinsic effort associated with creating that specific deliverable. Such discrete analysis would prove that specific deliverables are not worth the corresponding milestone value, but are either front-loaded or back-loaded. Given that cash-flow management is key to keeping a contr actor’s overhead low and minimizing the cost to the Government and given that the Air Force is not looking for small businesses to finance its expenditures, proposing draft milestone payments are reasonable when considering the required continuum of services under this PBR.

The AF will not pay for drafts on every deliverable, but on a case by case basis such as for significant reports (e.g., RI, FS, ROD/DD, etc) and/or more complex site work plans.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

12. Attachment L-6: Supplemental Instruction to Offerors for the Development of Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structures/Milestone Payment Schedule (MPS)/Integrated Master Schedule (IMS):

Pages 3-13 presents the example MPS to follow for this PBR. We note that funding for the first subCLIN at all sites will be exercised upon award of the contract. Is this correct and consistent with the Air Force’s funding profile for this installation/PBR or is the offeror to provide an alternative funding profile with potentially differing dates for initiating the activities under each CLIN? If the first subCLIN at all sites will be exercised at contract award, how will the overlap between the new contract and ongoing contracts be handled, specifically, Bhate’s contract through October 2014 for Long-Term Monitoring and RA-O at a number of the OES sites?

The final RFP will reflect the sub-CLINs that are most likely to be funded “at-award”. If a sub-CLIN is scheduled for a different exercise date due to current task orders, bridge contracts, etc., the approximate date of exercise will be noted in the sub-CLIN examples in the Final RFP.

13. Section L.4.10, Subfactor 1.4 Corporate Experience – the projects must meet a threshold of $2M. Section M Subfactor 1.4 assigns a greater value to projects ≥ $10M. As this is a Small Business set-aside, we request that the RFP be clarified to match the $2M threshold.

In Section L, 4.10, AF is requesting project summaries shall include projects greater than $2M. However, for Section M, Subfactor 1.4, evaluation of past performance, it states, “It is desirable for submitted project information to include the following: Award value equal to or greater than $10M”

14. Section L, Table 2.2 includes a requirement for Specific Content in Vol III and references section 5.9, however, there is no 5.9 in section L. Will this reference in Table 2.2 be removed?

The reference to Section 5.9 in Table 2.2 has been removed.

15. Has AFCEC decided which contracting mechanism it will use for the Fairchild PBR?

AFCEC is utilizing the 772 ESS to procure these services. A solicitation will be issued via FedBizOps.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

16. Model Contract: Because the solicitation document is security protected, we are unable to complete the appropriate data to submit for the Model Contract (e.g., Standard Form 33 and Section K) in accordance with Section L, paragraph 3.10. For the final RFP, please provide either a Word or an unsecured PDF of the solicitation document to facilitate completion by offerors.

Due to the Contract Writing System, a Word or Unsecured PDF version cannot be provided.

17. Section G: In order for firms to comply with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, please define if this is considered a general construction contract or a services contract.

This is a services contract.

18. Attachment 4, Key Personnel Qualifications and Parameters: Would the government consider amending the degree requirements for the Public Affairs Officer to include engineering or scientific degrees?

Many personnel in this role with the experience and responsibilities as outlined in the solicitation have technical backgrounds.

The Public Affairs Officer has been removed from the Key Personnel requirement.

19. Table 2.2, Proposal Organization and 3.5 Validity Statement: Per Table 2.2 and Section 3.1, Volume Organization, we are to include the Validity Statement as a section of Volume I. However, section 3.5, Validity Statement, indicates that this statement should be included in the Cover Letter. In Table 2.2, we suggest deleting tab 3.5, Validity Statement, and/or stating that no submittal/tab is required.

“No submittal/tab required” has been added to 3.5 in Table 2.2

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

20. Table 2.2, Proposal Organization and 4.4, General and 4.6 Proposal Requirement Specifications: It is not clear what should be included in the tabs for 4.4, General and 4.6 Proposal Requirement Specifications, since these appear to be instructions and not requirements. We suggest deleting tab 4.4, General and 4.6, Proposal Requirement Specifications from Table 2.2, or similar to 4.5, stating that no submittal/tab is required.

Section 4.4 and Section 4.6 are for informational purposes only, no submittal is required. “No submittal/tab required” has been added to 4.4 and 4.6 in Table 2.2

21. Table 2.2, Proposal Organization: The page limit for ITO paragraphs 4.4 through 4.8 are unrealistic and unreasonable for the number of sites under this PBR. To provide the detail required to reasonably evaluate proposals, we request that the government increase the page limit for these tabs to 150 pages. Our reasoning is as follows: On previous 772 ESS PBRs, we have been able to provide the technical approaches in Subfactor 1.1 in about 1.5 pages per site, with OES sites requiring 2 pages because of the quantitative performance model. The number of pages for Subfactor 1.2 varies greatly based on technical complexity, but providing Plan B approaches typically requires one page for 2-4 sites. On the Fairchild PBR proposal, additional technical approach information is requested that has not previously been required on other 772 ESS PBRs. Furthermore, this RFP is requiring more quantitative performance models than other similar PBR contracts. This request also supports “lessons learned” presentations from AFCEC/772 ESS that the Business Case Analysis and Plan B Contingency Approaches are often missing the level of detail that the Air Force expects.

Page count will be increased to 100 pages.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

22. 2.3.10(d), Proposal Copies: The requirement is to apply appropriate markings in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e) and FAR

3.104.4. We are required to submit several

documents in Microsoft Excel and this program limits the amount of characters allowed in footers; therefore, both restriction statements and other required data such as page numbers cannot be placed in the footers of these documents. For Microsoft Excel files only, may we incorporate these restrictions by reference rather than including the statements that are to be provided on each sheet of data per paragraph (2) in FAR 52.215-1(e) and paragraph (c) of FAR 3.104.4?

Yes

23. 3.10 Model Contract: Per this instruction, we are to provide the “original” copy under separate cover. Please confirm that you wish this part to be provided separately from the rest of Volume I. If so, please also confirm if a “duplicate” copy should also be provided with the original Volume I with standard 2-hole punch at the top of each page. Please also confirm if this also applies to the Representations and Certifications and Attachments to the Model Contract.

Instructions regarding the Model Contract have been updated. Please refer to Section L 2.3.10.1 and 3.10.

Instructions regarding Reps and Certs have been updated. Please refer to Section L 3.10.1.

24. 3.10.2 Attachments to the Model Contract: Section L states that these are anticipated to be made part of the Fairchild AFB PBR Contract upon Award. Please clarify if these attachments are to be included in our proposal.

Offeror is not required to include copies of these attachments.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

25. 4.9 Sub-Factor 1.3, Management Approach: Paragraph 2 requires that offerors have an approved property management system. It is very unusual to have significant property management requirements on PBR and other remediation contracts; therefore, very few, if any, small business contractors will likely have an approved property management system. Also, DCMA will not approve a property management system at a contractor’s request. There are certain values of property managed that trigger an approval and the approval must be requested by a Contracting Agency. Therefore, we ask that the government consider deleting the word “approved.” Offerors should still demonstrate that they have a property management system in place.

4.9 Sub-Factor 1.3, Management Approach does not

reference an approved property management system.

26. 4.9 Sub-Factor 1.3, Management Approach: Paragraph 5 requires that offerors provide a description that the team members have relevant experience with the technologies proposed. Please confirm if “team members” is referring to the Prime Contractor and any subcontractors with teaming arrangements, or if it is referring to the key personnel.

“Team member” is defined as, “Anyone employed on the project team for the purposes of providing environmental restoration services to the Air Force at Fairchild AFB per the awarded PBR contract.”

27. 5.1 Volume Organization: Note that item (e), Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent is not included as a tab in Table 2.2.

Please confirm if these are required to be submitted in Volume III, and if so, in which tab.

Yes, they should be included in Volume III under Tab 5.1.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

28. 5.6 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs): Feedback from some of our government clients indicate, that due to current resource constraints, they are no longer permitted to provide PPQs if a CPARS/CCASS/ACASS has been issued for a project. Since CPARS/CCASS/ACASS are official government documentation of past performance, may we substitute a valid CPARS/CCASS/ACASS in lieu of a PPQ?

No – PPQs are required

29. Attachment L-2 MPS with Price and Attachment L-6. Please confirm that the subtotal in Attachment L-2 “Total Award” should only include the subtotals of those Sub- CLINS in Attachment L-6 with a Projected Date of Exercise of “At Award.”

Yes. There should be three (3) distinct calculations.

The first is the total contract value, which is your Firm Fixed Price for the entire PBR per the PWS. Second, is the “Total Awarded” amount, which is the amount of money expected to be awarded “at-award” per those sub-CLINs listed in the sub-CLIN example (Attachment L-6) as being shown with an “At-award” date of exercise, and the third calculation is the “Total Option” amount, which is the difference of Total Contract value minus Total Awarded.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

30. Attachment L-6 Supplemental Instructions to Offerors for the Development of CLIN Structures/MPS/IMS: Per these instructions, “The AF will not pay for drafts on every deliverable, but on a case by case basis such as for significant reports (e.g., RI, FS, ROD/DD, etc.) and/or more complex site work plans.”

Timely approval of documents by regulators has been, and continues to be, a challenge for all contractors working active PBR projects.

We therefore request that per Attachment L-6 and FAR Clause 52.232-32 Performance-Based Payments, milestone payments for Air Force-approved Draft documents, for all deliverables/sites, regardless of complexity, be accepted because of the value received and benefit gained by Air Force.

The AF will not pay for drafts on every deliverable, but on a case by case basis such as for significant reports (e.g., RI, FS, ROD/DD, etc) and/or more complex site work plans.

31. M002.C.2).(b) Past Performance/Relevancy Assessment: Is there a hierarchy of relevance within the bullets listed? For example, will a PBR project that meets all the criteria except was not performed in Washington or EPA Region 10 be more highly rated than a project that meets all the criteria except it is not a PBR?

No, there is no specific hierarchy for the bullet points referenced, and no one bullet supersedes another or is given more weight in determining the relevancy assessment. Please note that the referenced text specifically indicates, “Higher Relevancy ratings may be given to projects that include;” (bullet points referenced), and “A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s).”

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

SITE VISIT QUESTIONS

1. We request the following documents be provided:

• Limited Field Investigation Report Priority 2 Sites, Sept 1992, ICF Technology

• Remedial Investigation Report for Priority 2a Sites, February 1995, ICF Technology

• Remedial Investigation Report, Craig Road Landfill, April 1992, SAIC

• Final Remedial Investigation Report for On-Base Priority One Operable Unit, February 1993, Halliburton NUS

• Final 1999 Annual Report, Long-Term Monitoring, Priority 1, 2, and 3 Sites, April 2001, EA Engineering

• Final 1998 Annual Report, Long-Term Monitoring, Priority 1, 2, and 3 Sites, October 1999, EA Engineering

• August 2011 Interim ROD OU-5 (SS-39)

• Draft Risk Assessment Revision/Feasibility

Study Amendment for Site SD-37, Ken Taylor and Associates (KTA) and ERM June

• Draft RI, Remediation and Monitoring Report, AMEC 2008

• Final Closure Report for Installation Restoration Program Sites; Removal Actions Sites SS-33, SD-34, ST-35, and SD- 38, OHM Remediation Services Corp.

Dated August 1998

• CH2M HILL, February 2010. Additional Site Characterization in Support of Pre-remedial Action Pilot Testing in the Vicinity of Bldg. 2447, Technical Memorandum.

• CH2M HILL, May 2010. Final Sustainable Bioreactor Demonstration Work Plan, Site SD-37,Bldg. 2447, Fairchild AFB, Washington.

• Current Federal Facility Agreement with any applicable attachments, tables, and schedules

All available documents have been uploaded to the Google Site.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

2. We request the following documents be provided:

• GW monitoring reports since Second Quarter 2012

• RAB and/or Public meeting minutes after

• Recent (2011/2012/2013)AF, AF Legal, USACE, and Regulatory correspondence

• Craig Road Landfill reports for 2013 activities

• Any correspondence or documents since the Proposed Plan was finalized concerning ARARs for SS039.

• Interim ROD and Vapor Intrusion Study Report for SS039.

• Information for all the TU and OW sites

Available documents have been uploaded to the Google Site.

3. SS019, water tower valve vault mercury spill site, has a MPO of SC within 2 years.

The PBR site visit slide and reports indicate residual Hg contamination is present within the valve vault concrete.

Institutional controls are being used to control safety during vault entry. Does SC of SS019 include achievement of UU/UE of the valve vault or is it limited to soil and groundwater exterior to the vault? If the valve vault is included in SC for SS019, are there seasonal limits on when the water line could be taken out of service if vault replacement is required?

Draft Action Memo, Mercury Valve Vault Site SS019 (SC-514), Time Critical Removal Action, August 2013, is available at the RFP Google Document site. EPA Region 10 letter, 27 Nov 13, is also available at the RFP Google Document site and indicates the EPA expects continued Five Year Reviews of residual contamination within the vault, which would not meet UU/UE for SC.

There are no known seasonal limits on when the water line could be taken out of service if vault replacement is required.

4. The NFA Sites (Priority 3) have an MPO of SC within 2 years. Sites OT016 and OT017 have an MPO of SC within 4 years. Based on the PBR site visit slides it appears that work was last performed in 1995-1998 time frame. Has WA Ecology indicated that they will accept data that is at least 15 years old or will new investigative data be required?

Sites OT016 and OT017 status and plan forward, consistent with the MPOs for each site, was documented in the 2013 Five Year Review (FYR), which can be found at the RFP Google Document site. WA Ecology has not indicated agreement or disagreement with the FYR.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

5. Is there any information available on the specific location and site conditions of

SS059?

Available documents have been uploaded to the Google Site.

6. Is there any information available on the specific location and site conditions at

DP064?

Available documents have been uploaded to the Google Site.

7. Is the soil vapor extraction equipment that is being used at Craig Road Landfill Government owned equipment?

The soil vapor extraction equipment in use at Craig Road Landfill (Site LF002) South Disposal Area (SDA) is government-owned equipment.

8. Does the Government pay for utilities at the Craig Road Landfill treatment plant? If not, what are current utility costs?

See PWS section 7.4. The AF shall be responsible for payment of the utilities.

9. Is mowing of the Craig Road Landfill cap performed? If so, will it be a PBR Contractor duty or does the Government perform mowing?

Landfill cap maintenance, including its vegetative cover, is a component of the site LF002 remedy that will be a PBR contractor responsibility.

10. The Minimum Performance Objective Table 1 indicates the PBR Contractor is required to support the five-year review through supplying documents and participation in meetings. During the site visit it was indicated that several sites are only sampled during the five-year review process. Who is responsible for any sampling/analysis needed for the five-year review process, PBR Contractor or five-year review Contractor?

See PWS section 1.2 and 8.5. Where Five Year Review (FYR) recommendations include additional sampling to support the subsequent FYR, the implementation of that recommendation will be the responsibility of the PBR contractor.

11. During the site visit, the AF noted it would be difficult to access sites in airfield control areas or within aircraft operating areas. What are the special procedures for access and how much time should we schedule for AF approval for access to these sites?

About one hour of effort will be needed when the contractor first starts working at Fairchild AFB. After that it'll take less than five minutes to make a phone call to Base Operations each time the contractor team enters and leaves the airfield.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

12. Are there specific sites within the airfield control areas or aircraft operating areas where excavation will not be possible? If so, please list the sites.

Excavations will not be allowed in the active taxiways of the active airfield. Excavations will not be allowed in the aircraft parking areas of the active airfield.

13. Are there specific sites in the airfield control areas or aircraft operating areas where installation of borings and/or wells will not be possible? If so, please list the sites.

Borings and/or wells will not be allowed in the active taxiways of the active airfield. On a case by case basis, borings and/or wells may be allowed in the aircraft parking areas of the active airfield. Such wells would have to be constructed and rated such that aircraft could be approved to travel over the well monuments.

14. Which agencies and offices does the Air Force consider have regulatory approval authority for Site Closure for radiological contamination (or lack thereof) at RW011?

Refer to the Federal Facility Agreement available at the RFP Google Documents site.

15. Have these agencies reviewed and accepted both the chemical or radiological surveys and results from the 2009 USACE Supplemental Site Investigation and the 2012 Ahtna/Hart Crowser JV soil excavation?

EPA Region 10 has reviewed and concurred with final documents for site RW011 that are available at the RFP Google Documents site.

16. Does the PBR scope for IRP Site RW011 include any of the structures associated with former nuclear weapons storage and maintenance, especially igloos or C-structures? If so, have previous assessments been made of the radioactive contamination or wastes in the structures and will the results and reports be provided with the RFP?

Refer to the Site RW011 documents available at the RFP Google Documents site.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

17. The potential radioactive wastes at Site RW011 result from radioactive materials that are exempt from US Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulatory authority under the Section 91b exemption, Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Is there an Air Force Safety Center permit for Site RW011 as required by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 91-108? Were the characterization and remedial actions/endpoints approved by the AFSC in accordance with AFI 91-108?

Site RW011 does not have or require an Air Force Safety Center (AFSC) permit.

18. Section L, Proposal Organization, ITO 4.4 and 4.6. Are there submittal requirements for these paragraphs and, if so, are they included in the page count?

There are no submittal requirements for these paragraphs.

19. Interim MPOs were briefly described at the Site Visit presentation. Please further define interim MPOs related to Table 1 of the Draft RFP and how they affect the final Performance Objectives and Milestone Payments.

Interim MPOs must be achieved at the timeframe specified in Table 1 of the SOO. It may be possible to achieve an Interim MPO (i.e., RC) at the same time as the final MPO (i.e., SC) IF the completion date is within the timeframe specified for the Interim MPO.

20. Does experience in remediation solvent plumes in fractured bedrock and experience with Vapor Intrusion specifically need to be conducted in Washington State?

No.

21. The draft RFP indicates the ROM to be between $10M to $15M. Will the Air Force provide the basis for the ROM?

The ROM is based on the Minimum Performance Objectives listed in the PWS – Tables 1 and 2.

22. Site SR939-Machine Gun Range: There is currently an earthen berm surrounding the Machine Gun Range. If portions of this earthen berm are removed as part of a remedial action, would the Air Force require the contractor to restore the berm to its current condition?

Fairchild AFB will not require the earthen berm at the Machine Gun Range, site SR939, to be restored.

23. The Google document site includes a folder which is titled “TS929 Skeet Range”.

Table 1: Minimum Performance Objectives and Standards does not include site TS929.

Please clarify if site TS929 Skeet Range is to be included in this PBR.

Site TS929, Skeet Range is not included in this PBR and the folder has been removed.

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

24. Please provide electronic copies of the following documents which are referenced in the Third Five Year Review Report (May 2013):

• AECOM Technical Services Inc., November 2012. Basewide Conceptual Site Model for Fairchild AFB.

• Budinger & Associates, December 2012.

Oil Water Separator Closure, Refueling Vehicle Maintenance Facility, Buildings 1060 & 2024, Fairchild AFB, WA.

Available documents have been uploaded to the Google Site.

25. Table 1: Minimum Performance Objectives and Standards – There are 5 sites (TU-500 through TU506) that require RI/Characterization within 2 years and 25 sites (mostly OWS) that require complete RI/Characterization within three years. The document folders for these sites on the Google documents site do not contain any information. At a minimum, please provide a map showing the locations of these 30 sites.

Available documents have been uploaded to the Google Site.

26. Please provide an electronic copy of the following document: USAF, August 2011.

Interim Record of Decision, OU5 Site – Spill Site 39 (SS-39) Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Plume, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. Prepared for USAF by USACE.

Available documents have been uploaded to the Google Site.