Fairchild_FINAL_RFP_-_Questions_and_Responses.pdf

FINAL RFP QUESTIONS / RESPONSES

FA8903-14-R-0004

Fairchild Air Force Base PBR

QUESTIONS RESPONSE

1. The Table 1 of PWS lists a total 31 compliance sites (6 tank sites and 25 oil water separator sites). Whereas the documents provided in Google drive are only for two compliance sites; Site OW055 (Bldg 1060 OWS) and Site OW063 (Bldg 2024 OWS). Was there any previous investigation performed and report documents available for the remaining 29 compliance sites? Please make these documents available on the google docs site as soon as possible.

The document “Compliance Cleanup Sites Final ER 2009.pdf” located in the “Multiple Sites” folder has additional information on compliance sites.

2. The Oil Water Separator Closure Report (prepared by Budinger & Associates, Inc.) for Site OW055 and Site OW063 indicates that there has not been a significant release from the oil water separator systems and concluded that no further action is warranted. Did the Washington State Department of Ecology issue a no further action concurrence letter for these two oil water separator sites?

The Washington State Department of Ecology did not issue a no further action concurrence letter for these two oil water separator sites.

3. The Table 1 of PWS indicates that a Basewide well inventory need to be completed within one (1) year obligation date and throughout POP, properly repair existing monitoring wells and/or abandon existing monitoring wells no longer needed as determined by well inventory. As part of the existing monitoring wells repair, all micro-wells are required to be replaced with a 4-inch standard well. How many micro-wells need to be replaced with a 4-inch standard well?

The number of microwells that need to be replaced will be determined during the Basewide well inventory task.

4. The AFCEC Memorandum for Record, dated 21 November 2013, indicates that the draft Summary of In-situ Chemical Oxidation Injections - Site SS-39 Hot Spot Areas #1 and #3 (August 2013), Fairchild AFB (CH2MHill) document has not yet had complete Air Force review/revision and has not yet been provided for regulatory review and approval. The final version of this document may have significant changes based on both Air Force and regulator input. If so, can AFCEC provide the Final version of this document as soon as possible in order for the bidder to provide an accurate proposal?

All available documents have been posted on the Google site and a final version will not be available.

5. The AFCEC Memorandum for Record, dated 20 November 2013, indicates that the draft Fairchild AFB, Site SS-39 Pre-Design Investigations (CH2MHill) document has not yet had complete Air Force review/revision and has not yet been provided for regulatory review and approval. The final version of this document may have significant changes based on both Air Force and regulator input. If so, can AFCEC provide the Final version of this document as soon as possible in order for the bidder to provide an accurate proposal?

6. The AFCEC Memorandum for Record, dated 20 November 2013, indicates that the draft Fairchild AFB OU5, Site SS-39, TCE Orphan Plumes Vapor Intrusion Pathway Evaluation Report (AFCEC and HAFB IST)) document has not yet had complete Air Force review/revision and has not yet been provided for regulatory review and approval. The final version of this document may have significant changes based on both Air Force and regulator input. If so, can AFCEC provide the Final version of this document as soon as possible in order for the bidder to provide an accurate proposal?

7. Is the Draft or Final Technical Memorandum prepared by CH2M HILL for Fairchild Air Force Base, Site SD-37 Datagap Investigation and Analysis available now for bidders review?

Google site.

8. The Draft Soil Vapor Extraction and In-Situ Chemical Oxidation treatability Testing Report for Site LF002 (Craig Road Landfill), Fairchild AFB, Washington, CH2MHill, October 2013 does not provide specifications for SVE or ISCO systems. Is there any design/specifications document and/or O&M Manual available for SVE and ISCO systems at LF002?

A draft SVE O&M manual has been uploaded to the Google Site and added to Enclosure 2. No further documentation is available.

9. Since some key documents for critical sites like SS039, LF002, SD037 and the 31 Compliance Sites were only recently uploaded or are not available (e.g. SD-37 Final Data Gaps Investigation) and in consideration of the upcoming holiday schedule and potential delay in receiving responses to questions, we would like to request an extension for the Fairchild PBR due date to February 28, 2014, contingent upon availability of required documents.

The proposal due date will not be extended at this time. The Air Force believes there is sufficient information within documents provided to prepare a proposal.

10. Per the 3rd 5-year Report, at site ST010, building 1350 was demolished in January 2013 and future RAO reports were to have post-demolition soil excavation and sampling results. The 1Q2013 RAO did not include any building 1350 or ST010 results. Are there any post building 1350 demolition reports or sample results available?

Available documentation for B1350 post-demolition sampling has been uploaded to the Google Site and added to Enclosure 2.

11. Is any new construction planned at the former Building 1350 location? If so, please provide anticipated schedule and planned layout.

There is no new construction currently planned at the former Building 1350 location.

12. For IMS purposes, what is anticipated award date?

Proposals may use 1 Aug 14 as an anticipated award date.

13. At Site ST006, Attachment L-6, page 7 of 18 shows RA-O Sub-CLINS after achievement of RC. ST006 in Table 2 indicates any necessary LTM should be performed after achievement of RC. In Attachment L-6, Site ST006, should the post RC Sub-CLINS be for LTM?

Attachment L-6 has been updated.

14. Sites DP022 and DP024 have no further action determinations in the OU-3 ROD. They are not listed in the Land Use Controls Management Plan. The Table 2 MPO is LTM.

Since these sites already have decision document determinations of NFA and there are no LUCs to monitor, what is the LTM scope for DP022 and DP024?

LUC development, documentation in the LUC Management Plan, and LUC implementation are anticipated due to potential PAH from remaining coal and asphalt debris at the sites that prevent site closure to UU/UE.

15. Please provide: “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.

Subject document has been uploaded to the Google Site and added to Enclosure 2.

16. Section L, 4.7 Subfactor 1.1: Technical Approach, 1. states: “The Offeror shall provide a business case analysis with sufficient detail to support why each proposed performance objective for sites listed in Table 1 of the PWS are the optimum end state for the Government, including those sites for which SC is proposed.” Is a business case required when the Government has already determined the MPO in Table 1 is SC?

A business case analysis is not required when the Government has already determined the MPO in Table 1 is SC.

17. Table 1 page 5 of 5 and Sub-CLINS 0062AB, 0062AC-AE requires replacement of micro-wells with 4 inch standard wells. What is the micro-well diameter criteria for replacement (≤1”, ≤3/4”, ≤1/2”, other)?

For the purpose of this solicitation, micro-wells are wells with an inner diameter less than two (2) inches.

18. Table 1 page 5 of 5 and Sub-CLINS 0062AB, 0062AC-AE requires replacement of micro-wells with 4-inch standard wells. Review of documents indicates that typically 2-inch wells have recently been installed at Fairchild AFB.

Please confirm that the Government wants micro-wells replaced with 4-inch wells.

For the purpose of this solicitation, micro-wells are wells with an inner diameter less than two (2) inches.

As indicated in Table 1, micro-wells at locations that still require a well will need to be replaced with a 4 inch standard well.

19. The November 2012 Basewide Conceptual Site Model shows the location of nine wells (MW_1 through MW_9) on page 99 of 11,130.

These wells appear to be associated with TU502 however we have not been able to find any documentation on these wells. TU502 had 14 heating oil USTs that were removed in 1997. Has TU502 been investigated under a different program? If so, are there any additional documentation available?

Additional documentation for site TU502 and other UST sites has been uploaded to the Google Site and added to Enclosure 2.

20. Key Personnel – please clarify if the Public Affairs Officer is a key personnel. Sections L and M do not match.

Public Affairs Officer is not a key personnel category.

Section M has been updated to remove Public Affairs Officer.

21. Section 4.10 Corporate Experience – For projects that are actively being performed, how does the Government define 50% complete? Is the 50% complete based on the amount that has been awarded or on the amount that is anticipated to be awarded if the PBR project gets fully funded?

Percent completion can be based on awarded amounts.

22. Please provide documentation for all the TU sites, OW sites, CF sites, SD031,DP012, and AOC02. SS018 and SS026 only have a five year review document posted, please provide additional documentation. SD034 has a letter requesting RIP, please provide support documentation for the RIP request including PP, DD, and the construction document used to achieve RIP.

Available documentation for each site has been uploaded to the Google Site and added to Enclosure 2.

Proposal developers may need to consider all of the documents available in the “Multiple Site” folder.

23. Due to the addition of documents to the Google site after issuance of the Final RFP, plus the anticipated upload of several documents based on these questions, and because of the holidays, we request an extension of the proposal deadline to assimilate the newly released information and to allow sufficient time to obtain bids from contractors.

The proposal due date will not be extended at this time. The Air Force believes there is sufficient information within documents provided to prepare a proposal.

24. Please clarify bonding requirements on the solicitation. In 252.228-7004, bonding is required on construction activities only, however, Section 52.228-16 appears to indicate 100% performance and payment bonds on “OTHER THAN CONSTRUCTION” activities.

52.228-16 will be update at the time of award to reflect 100% of Construction Activities/Portions Only.

25. Please clarify that the Machine Gun Range at SR939 Site is permanently inactive and that the site is now managed under the MMRP.

Similarly, please provide the site coordination requirements and restrictions.

The Machine Gun Range at SR939 Site is permanently inactive and the site is now managed under the MMRP. There are no unique site coordination requirements or restrictions.

26. Regarding the 12 NFA sites, the 2013 Five- Year Review directs the reader to the Priority 2 (or the OU3) ROD. According to the OU3 ROD, the NFA decision and/or site requirements are captured in a No Action Decision Document(s).

In order to assess the site RA-O or LTM requirements, please provide the No Further Action Decision Documents for the 12 NFA sites or any other relevant documents that describe the RA-O or LTM requirements.

Subject documents have been uploaded to the Google Site and added to Enclosure 2.

27. According to the documentation reviewed, DP024 is noted as a NFA site that is not subject to Five-Year Review assessments and that according to the OU3 ROD, should be ready for SC through administrative processes. Please explain the rationale for adding DP024 to the Table 2 sites where LTM is required.

LUC development, documentation in the LUC Management Plan, and LUC implementation are anticipated due to potential PAH from remaining asphalt at the site that prevents site closure to UU/UE.

28. What should the contractors assume for the NTP date (or the quarter) for this contract for the IMS/MPS development?

Proposals may use 1 Aug 14 as an anticipated award date.

29. Please provide a document review process flow diagram that details the assumed AF review times for each document iteration (i.e.

Draft, Draft Final, and Final). Can we assume that AFCEC and Fairchild AFB reviews will be concurrent?

AFCEC no longer provides a document review process flow diagram. AFCEC plans 30 days for initial draft review iterations (pre-regulatory reviews of revision 0 and revision 1 as needed). Subsequent AF and regulatory review timeframes are identified in the FAFB Federal Facility Agreement. AFCEC Program Management and AFCEC Restoration Program Manager (previously FAFB) reviews are concurrent.

Documents, such as Records of Decision, requiring FAFB Wing Commander signature need additional time budgeted for 92 ARW review and coordination, typically 2-3 months.

30. Please verify that Building 1350 has been demolished and that the building pad/foundation has been removed. Please indicate whether there are plans to build in this area within the next 10 years.

Building 1350 has been demolished and the building pad/foundation has been removed. There is no new construction currently planned at the former Building 1350 location.

31. Can the AF please provide the document titled “Final Closure for Installation Restoration Program Sites, Removal Action Sites SD-33, SD- 34, ST-35 and SD-38” dated August 1998?

Subject document has been uploaded to the Google Site and added to Enclosure 2.

32. Folders on the Google document site are present for the following sites OW049, OW050, OW051, OW052,OW053, OW054, OW056, OW057, OW058, SS059, CF061, CF062, and DP064, but contain no documents/information. Similarly, there were other empty folders on the Google site. Can the AF please provide any/all information available regarding these sites.

All available information regarding these sites has been provided at the Google Site.

33. Can the AF please provide the following document: CH2M HILL, February 2013.

Priority Three Sites PBC, Fairchild AFB Site SS- 39 Conceptual Site Model Update (Revision 2)?

Subject document has been uploaded to the Google Site and added to Enclosure 2.

34. Can the AF please provide the most recent RAB meeting minutes?

The most recent RAB minutes available (October 2012) have been uploaded to the Google Site and added to Enclosure 2.

35. Based on the available documents site DP012 is listed as No Further Action (NFA) based without restriction of future land use. Please explain the intent of implementing OES to achieve SC at the site.

The September 1992 NFA Decision Document identified LUC for site DP012 that currently prevent SC with Unrestricted Use/Unrestricted Exposure. An OES will provide an analysis of alternatives to aggressively expedite SC or remain at RC with LUC.

36. Please indicate if the remaining three ASTs at Site ST006 will be removed within the frame of the POP.

The three remaining, active ASTs at Site ST006 are not planned for removal within the POP at this time.

37. Could AF provide insight into the condition of the groundwater treatment system associated with site WW-1? Specifically, have any equipment, controls, wells (other than EW-2) or piping been decommissioned and/or removed?

The WW-1 groundwater treatment system has not been decommissioned and has been left intact on site.

Its operational condition is unknown.

38. Could AF provide insight into the condition of the air sparge and bioventing system associated with site FT-004? Again, have any equipment, controls, wells or piping been decommissioned and/or removed? The reference in section 5.2 of the 3rd 5 year report indicates that the system is inoperable due to a 2007 soil removal, however it is not clear as to what wells or equipment is inoperable.

The FT-004 air sparge and bioventing system has not been decommissioned and has been left intact on site.

The air supply lines for the FT-004 Air Sparge and Bioventing systems have been cut and partially removed as a result of the 2007 soil removal project.

Its operational condition is unknown.

39. Documents which are not available on the Google drive site but useful for preparing bid:

A. “Design Analysis Report – Bioventing and Air Sparging Systems, Fire Training Area (FT- 1)”; March 1996 – Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. Denver, CO.

B. Final Technical Specifications - Bioventing and Air Sparging Systems, Fire Training Area (FT- 1)”; March 1996 – Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. Denver, CO.

Subject documents have been uploaded to the Google Site and added to Enclosure 2.

40. Site SS039 had ISCO injections in August 2013, which typically requires subsequent performance monitoring to determine the effects of the injection. Will the PBR contractor be responsible for any performance monitoring?

Yes. The AF is planning to conduct initial performance monitoring in early 2014 for the Site SS039 ISCO injections. Continued performance monitoring by the PBR contractor is anticipated to be required to complete this phase of the remedial design actions.

41. I understand the 100 single-sided page limitation for Volume II, Technical Subfactors

1.1 and 1.2, the 8 single-sided page limit for Technical Subfactor 1.3, and the 5 page limit on Technical Subfactor 1.4. Please confirm that our hard copy submittal of Volume II (other than the Site Summary Table, Post POP Life Cycle Cost table, and IMS) may be double sided.

Single-sided pages are required for all submissions.

42. The discussion of the Post POP Life Cycle Costs on page 9 states that the Post POP LCCs estimates with Activities and Assumptions shall be submitted on 11x17 inch single sided paper and is excluded from the page count, unless any text other than the cost estimate is provided. Please confirm that the required activities and assumptions and are not considered “text” for the purpose of the page limitation.

Activities and assumptions are not considered text for the purposes of the page limitation. However, if there is any other text/information included other than activities and assumption, then those pages will be counted against the page count.