BECSRC_West_Consolidated_QAs_Technical_102215.pdf

BECSRC WEST CONSOLIDATED TECHNICAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS, FA8903-15-R-0023

22 Oct 2015

1. Section L, West, 4.1.2 Subfactor 1.2 – STO, Page 13 of 25 - Will a cost loaded IMS/PPC be required for the sample problem?

ANSWER: No, a cost loaded IMS/PPC is not required for the sample TO.

2. Sample TO, West, Page 19 of 23 - Shall we assume that the wells will be installed away from buildings and obstruction and overhead high voltage line?

ANSWER: Yes. Open space; no obstructions.

3. Sample TO, West, Page 19 of 23 - Shall we assume no concrete or asphalt coring would be required prior to well drilling?

ANSWER: Yes. Topsoil/soil only

4. Sample TO, West, Section 6.16.2, page 21 of 23 - Are we to assume that a total of 17 soil samples to be collected shall include the initial and stepout samples, and not 17 initial samples and an additional no more than 17 stepout samples?

ANSWER: The 17 soil samples ONLY include the initial soil samples (15 + 2-Field). Add 10% QA/QC samples . Assume step-out soil sampling is required.

5. Sample TO, West, Section 6.16.2, page 21 of 23 - Is the OWS a concrete or steel structure? If made of concrete, will you be able to provide any information as to the thickness of the wall and bottom? Is the top of the OWS flush with the ground or buried? Are we to assume the OWS is currently empty?

Are the immediate surrounding surfaces/ground paved with asphalt or concrete or is it dirt?

ANSWER: Assume the following conditions for the OWS:

a). OWS is concrete with 6-inch walls and bottom.

b). Top of the OWS is flush with ground.

c). OWS is empty of contents.

d). Immediate surrounding surface is topsoil.

6. Sample TO, West, Section 6.16.2, page 21 of 23 - Shall we assume SWMU #4 area is unpaved?

ANSWER: Yes. Hard dirt and gravel.

7. Sample TO, West, Section 6.16.2, page 21 of 23 - Is the Contractor responsible for construction water including dust control, and wetting/moisturizing the backfill material for proper compaction? Is there a source of water at the site that the Contractor would be allowed to use?

ANSWER: Yes, the contractor is responsible for construction water. No. Assume contractor will have to use a water truck.

8. Sample TO, West, Section 6.6.4 - Interim RA-O/LTM states that samples will be analyzed for MNA parameters. What are analytical requirements for MNA parameters?

ANSWER: Groundwater analyses to be performed to evaluate the potential for Natural Attenuation include:

a). Alkalinity b). Aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons c). Arsenic d). Chloride e). Conductivity f). Iron (II) g). Hydrogen (H2) h). Manganese i). Methane, ethane, and ethene j). Nitrate k). ORP l). Oxygen m). pH n). Sulfate (SO4

-2) o). Total Organic Carbon

9. Sample TO, West, Section 6.6.4 - Monitoring Well Installation states that monitoring wells is to be installed “with 2-foot square concrete pads and 8 guard posts”. Please confirm that 8 guard posts will be required since the more common requirement is for 4 guard posts.

ANSWER: The contractor is expected to install one concrete pad per monitoring well installation for a total of two concrete pads. Each concrete pad will have four guard posts for a total of 8 guard posts.

10. Sample TO, West, Section 1.1, page 5 of 23 - The first full paragraph states that the contractor shall prepare Working Copy (WC), Draft (D), Draft Final (DF) and Final (F) versions of all documents. Please explain who will be reviewing each of these versions (e.g. AF, state regulator, EPA) and what the review times will be? Review times are required for developing a schedule for the Sample TO.

ANSWER: Assume AF will review/comment on all iterations and state regulator will review the DF and F versions. Assume 20 business days for review per iteration

11. Sample TO, West, Section 6.6.4 - Monitoring Well Installation states that “The Contractor shall document all activities….in a Monitoring Well Installation Report.” Is there a requirement for submittal/AF review of Monitoring Well Installation Work Plan prior well installation/sampling?

ANSWER: Yes. Assume 20 business days for review per iteration.

12. Sample TO, West, Section 6.6.4 - Monitoring Well Installation states that 2 monitoring wells will be installed and 2 GW samples will be collected. Pleas confirm that QC samples will be in addition to the 2 field samples.

ANSWER: Correct. Assume 10-percent for QA/QC purposes.

13. Sample TO, West, Section 6.6.4 - Monitoring Well Installation states, “Drum all IDW as non-hazardous.” Please confirm if contractor is responsible for disposal of the IDW soil?

ANSWER: Correct.

14. Sample TO, West, Section 6.6.4, Monitoring Well Installation - Is the contractor responsible for offsite disposal of purge water from groundwater sampling?

ANSWER: Yes.

15. Sample TO, West, Section 6.16.2, OWS, third bullet - “Analyze up to 17 samples for constituents...”

Are QC samples included in this number or are in addition to 17 samples?

ANSWER: Assume 10-percent for QA/QC purposes.

16. Sample TO, West, Section 6.16.2 - OWS, states that the Contractor will “gain clean closure.” Please clarify whether the closure is required to industrial or residential cleanup standards?

ANSWER: Clean closure will be achieved under residential soil cleanup standards.

17. Sample TO West, Section 6.16.2 - OWS, last paragraph, “The Contractor shall prepare OWS Remedial Investigation Report...” Please confirm that an Investigation Work Plan to document proposed investigation sampling and a Remedial Action Completion Report to document OWS removal and confirmation sampling results will also be required in addition to the RI Report, and submitted for AF and regulatory approval.

ANSWER: Correct. Assume 20 business days for review per iteration.

18. Sample TO West, Section 6.16.2 - SWMU #4 Removal, last paragraph, “The Contractor shall prepare a Remedial Action Completion Report...” Please confirm that an Investigation Work Plan to document proposed sampling and an Investigation Report to document investigation results and proposed area of excavation will also be required in addition to the RI Report, and submitted for AF and regulatory approval.

ANSWER: Correct. Assume 20 business days for review per iteration.

19. Per the Integrated Master Schedule for the STO, will this need to have payment milestones included, or will it be assumed that % complete invoicing will be used?

ANSWER: Percent complete invoicing will be used.

20. Per the STO Section 6.6.4:

a. What type of drill rig will install the wells (HSA, Sonic, Mud Rotary, etc.), the SOW references “fine loamy soil with a consolidated formation,” we assume this to mean there is soil overlying a consolidated bedrock, if so, how thick are the unconsolidated soils?, what type of bedrock is the consolidated formation?, this will dictate what type of drill rig is needed.

ANSWER: Assume approximately 20 feet of fine loamy soil overlying a weakly consolidated silty or sandy formation to a depth of 120 feet bgs. No Bedrock. Assume using HSA drilling technique

b. Will the boring be continuously cored or sampled at regular intervals for soil classification purposes, such as every 5’?

ANSWER: Borings will be sampled at 5-foot regular intervals.

c. Scope says “…sample top 100 feet” and “…submit the sample with the highest PID readings for VOC analysis,” what is the sample interval/frequency within the top 100 feet, and how many samples should we assume will be needed for lab testing?

ANSWER: Assume 5-foot sample intervals. Assume 6 soil samples (includes field and QA/QC samples).

d. Scope calls out 8 guard posts, is that for each well, or for both wells (4 guard posts each)?

ANSWER: 4 guard posts for each monitoring well.

e. What are the specifications on the guard posts?

ANSWER: Assume guard posts are 5-feet in length, cast Iron and concrete fill.

21. Per STO, 6.16.2, indicates to collect samples along associated piping, how long of a piping run should we assume?

ANSWER: Assume associated piping is 20 linear feet.

22. Per STO, Section 6.16.2 last paragraph, states the contractor will prepare an OWS Remedial Investigation Report that should recommend follow-on measures to decommission the OWS, however, per 6.16.2, 4th paragraph, the contractor is to remove the OWS and its accompaniments, therefore, its uncertain as to what decommissioning recommendations would be made? Please clarify.

ANSWER: The last sentence in the 4th paragraph will be deleted. The RI Report will not include follow-on efforts as the AF is seeking residential clean closure under this STO.

23. Per the STO SOW, there is no specific mention of anticipated work involving wetland, radiological or UXO issues, yet there are submittals pertaining to these in the CDRLs, should all submittals listed in the CDRLs be costed for in the pricing, or will there be an amendment to reconcile the STO scope and the CDRL list?

ANSWER: CDRLs have been revised to reflect specific deliverables required under this STO SOW.

24. Which regulatory entities/stakeholders will be approving the plans, etc? How many different entities will be commenting on draft submittals?

ANSWER: Assume Air Force, federal and state regulators will comment on plans and reports. Assume 20 business days for review per iteration.

25. Do the 17 total samples referenced in 6.16.2 for the OWS and SWMU #4 include the step-outs?

ANSWER: No. The 17 soil samples ONLY include the initial soil samples (15 + 2-Field). Add 10% QA/QC samples. Assume step-out soil sampling is required.

26. There are several sections in the SOW that are general with no specific scope details provided, and do not pertain to any of the sites listed in the STO, for example: 6.6.5 “Process Monitoring,” 6.16.4 “Decision Document Support” or 6.16.7 “Remedial Actions;” how will the technical approach be evaluated for these items?

ANSWER: Revisions have been made to reflect that these sections are not applicable to the Western

STO SOW.

27. Section L, 4.1.2 – Please clarify the following statement presented in paragraph 6 on p. 13 of 25, ”Spreadsheets shall be presented in the same order as the SOW presented information and shall be labeled IAW the paragraphs of the SOW.” Do you really want to see a cost sheet with costs for each Item listed under Part A, Part B and Part C of the STO? This will result in an extremely large cost sheet with (possibly) multiple tabs.

ANSWER: The AF expects to see cost/pricing data that reflects only the requirements listed in the STO.

Contractors are expected to provide cost/pricing details only to the deliverables identified in the STO.

CDRLs have been revised to reflect specific deliverables required under this STO SOW.

28. STO; Section 3.3, Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 – Please clarify number of Regulatory Interface meetings for this STO.

ANSWER: Meetings with regulators and other stakeholders will be required based on the task order.

For the purpose of the STO, assume 2 meetings.

29. STO; Section 3.6 - states that the Contractor is required to perform a laboratory subcontract pre-award audit before the laboratory receives project samples. Should these and other contract (rather than task order specific) activities be included in the sample problem write up for this task order?

ANSWER: AF assumes that the labs are certified and the contractor will perform this duty as part of the contract prior to sending samples for analysis and not necessary under this STO.

30. STO; Section 3.6 - Should the contractor assume that third party data validation is required?

ANSWER: The contractor’s Key Chemist will perform laboratory data review, verification, validation activities prior to ERPIMS submittal to ensure adequate quality and usability for site decision making.

31. STO; Sections 3.7.4 and 3.7.8 - Are there any AFB-specific permits necessary for field work (e.g. AFB public works department for drilling and utility clearance?

ANSWER: No. Only Local, County, City and State required permits for work on Castle AFB.

32. STO; Section 3.7.4 and 3.7.8. Are there any Former Castle AFB-specific permits necessary for field work (e.g. AFB public works department for drilling and utility clearance?

ANSWER: No. Only Local, County, City and State required permits for work on Castle AFB.

33. STO; Section 3.7.6. Will the COR arrange for visitor badges (e.g., is RapidGate necessary)? Since Castle AFB is inactive, can non-US citizens be used for field work?

ANSWER: Visitor badges are not required to perform work on Castle. However, Site access badges/rights may be required at certain sites. The AF will coordinate with the contractor when access badges/rights are required. Legal alien residents with proof of proper work documents may perform work at Castle AFB.

34. STO; Section 3.7.8 states that documents shall be maintained at the Contractor’s local site office. Is the contractor required to have a local field office?

ANSWER: The Contractor must make available all copies of applicable permits, agreement, licenses and certificates while on site. The corporate office managing the task order(s) shall also maintain all permits, agreement, licenses and certificates required to complete all work.

35. STO; Section 4.1 – Please clarify number of on-site meetings required for this STO.

ANSWER: The Contractor can assume one on-site meeting under this STO.

36. STO; Section 4.1 – Please clarify number of teleconferences required for this STO.

ANSWER: The Contractor can assume monthly teleconferences.

37. STO; Section 4.4 - Are there any Former Castle AFB-specific training requirements for field staff?

ANSWER: No, there are no former Castle AFB-specific training requirements for field staff.

38. STO; Section 4.10. Are there existing plans that can be updated instead of developing new plans?

ANSWER: The BECSRC is a new contract, which requires contractors to prepare and submit new work plans.

39. STO; Section 4.10 and CDRL attachment - There are many more deliverables listed in the CDRL attachment than are discussed in the sample SOW. Most of these appear to be inapplicable to the projected work. Section 4.10 in the TO SOW states that the contractor shall prepare and submit a health and safety plan, a sampling and analysis plan, and a waste management plan and references CDRL B001.

CDRL B001 lists Investigative Work Plan, Radiological Work Plan, Remedial Action Work Plan, Design Plan, Site Closure Plan, UFP-QAPP, Abatement Plan (lead/asbestos), Site Restoration Plan, and an Optimization Plan. Should we assume that only the specific plans discussed in the SOW are required or all of the plans listed in the CDRL?

ANSWER: CDRLs have been revised to reflect specific deliverables required under this STO SOW.

40. STO; Section 4.13 - states that the contractor shall provide a Quality Control Program Plan. This is a programmatic plan that is not specific to this task order. Should we include the preparation of this plan?

ANSWER: The last sentence has been deleted in the STO SOW.

41. STO; Section 6.6.2 - What physical analysis and sample count should be assumed? (Section 6.16.2 lays out assumptions for sample count and analysis but physical testing is not listed. Similar for background determination, discharge/effluent sampling discussed in this paragraph.)

ANSWER: Assume same sample count as chemical analysis. Apply standard method which involves the measurement of the physical properties of the soil constituent.

42. STO; Section 6.6.5 – Please detail the remedial equipment under Process Monitoring that may require adjustment, repair, or monitoring.

ANSWER: Revision has been made to reflect that this section is not applicable to the Western STO SOW.

43. STO; Section 6.12 – Please clarify if we are supposed to update the SWPPP or create an SWPPP.

ANSWER: Revision has been made to reflect that this section is not applicable to the Western STO

SOW.

44. STO; Section 6.12 - states that the contractor shall prepare a SWPPP plan. SWPPP plans are required for projects with over 1 acre of disturbed area. The work described in the SOW does not appear to require a SWPPP plan.

ANSWER: Revision has been made to reflect that this section is not applicable to the Western STO SOW.

45. STO; Section 6.12 - If we are supposed to implement the SWPPP for Former Castle AFB, please provided the detailed information (possibly a copy of the existing SWPPP) in order for a cost to be developed for inspections, sampling/analysis and training.

ANSWER: Revision has been made to reflect that this section is not applicable to the Western STO

SOW.

46. STO; Section 6.16.2 - requires the contractor to collect subsurface soil samples (2-8 ft) bgs from around the OWS and along associated piping. How long is the associated piping?

ANSWER: Assume associated piping is 20 linear feet.

47. STO; Section 6.16.2 - requires that the imported soil for the OWS and for SWMU #4 be compacted to 90% standard proctor. Will compaction testing be required and at what frequency. Are there specifications for how thick the soil lifts should be during placement?

ANSWER: One compaction test per lift. Soil lifts not to exceed 6 inches.

48. STO; Section 6.16.2 - For the SWMU #4 removal, the SOW requires 8 Geoprobe borings to 5 feet with two samples per boring and a total of 17 soil samples. The SOW also requires additional step out borings that is at a minimum equal to the original number of borings. Should the contractor assume an additional 8 borings and 17 soil samples?

ANSWER: Yes. The 17 soil samples ONLY include the initial soil samples (15 + 2-Field). Add 10% QA/QC samples. Assume step-out soil sampling is required.

49. STO; Section 6.16.4 - requires the contractor to prepare ESDs, proposed plans, and other decision documentation. Are these required for the MW installation, OWS investigation, or SWMU #4 removal?

ANSWER: No; ESDs, proposed plans, and other decision documentation are not required for MW installation, OWS investigation or SWMU #4 removal.

50. STO; Section 6.16.7 - discusses interim remedial actions. Should the contractors include provisions for any interim remedial actions?

ANSWER: Revisions have been made to reflect that this section is not applicable to the Western STO

SOW.

51. Please confirm that on Attachment L-5 there is to only be one “X” (primary SOW Task Area) per project and that offerors are to have a project for each SOW area on Attachment L-5.

ANSWER: Correct; only 1 ‘X’ (primary SOW Task Area) per project. It is not required that a contractor has a primary task area for each SOW Task Area. A contractor may have multiple projects with the same primary task area or multiple projects with additional SOW task areas.

52. Please confirm the CDRL list for the Sample Task Order (STO) is the same as the CDRL list for the contract SOW.

ANSWER: No, the CDRL list for the STO has been revised to contain only the CDRLs required in the STO.