20191206_Draft RFP Responses.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 47 KB Posted Dec 6, 2019

Attached to: Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Environmental Construction Optimization Services (BECOS) Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: FA890320R0002
Issued by: Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Installation and Mission Support Center Installation Contracting Agency

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 28, 2023

This draft request for proposal (RFP) solicits environmental construction optimization services for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites. The Air Force seeks a contractor to maintain selected remedies, optimize remedies to enhance progress, and advance sites to completion for multiple former installations in a cost-effective manner over ten years. Key details include services required at sites in multiple regions, with performance objectives of response complete, site closure, or long-term management. The RFP includes draft questions and answers, pricing models, labor rates, past performance questionnaires, and other attachments, but does not include a final proposal due date.

View the file

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Draft RFP QuestionsResponses

Q #	Document Reference	RFP QUESTIONS	GOV'T RESPONSE	RESPONSE DATE	SOURCE (govt only
1	Section L	Section L, 2.2.2, Table 2.2.2.1 - Please explain what is required in the "Pricing Narrative" section of Volume II; is this meant to be a technical approach to support pricing for TO 2?	"Pricing Narrative" removed.
2	Section M	Section M 4.0, Factor 2 - Cost/Price - please explain if and how the "Pricing Narrative" and "Pricing Assumptions, Exceptions, and Rationale" sections of Volume II are to be used in the evaluation of price.	"Pricing Narrative" removed.
3	PPQ	Under Regulatory Interaction and Stakeholder Coordination, please clarify criteria D. Should it read, "Performed an effort that required work on multiple areas with more than (5) five contract designated sites at such as installations or former installations. (able to coordinate work on multiple sites and areas well)?	The language has been updated to clarify. For PPQ purposes and demonstration of PPI, the text defines "site" in the context of something broader than an individual environmental site, "such as" an installation.
4	CLIN Structure and Price Model	Schedule B CLINs TO1 and TO2 Tabs note, "For Information Only. DO NOT FILL OUT." Please confirm these should not be completed and submitted with our proposal.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
5	CLIN Structure and Price Model	Price Instructions Tab, Item b. calls for a complete PBP arrangement with proposed events and timing, event completion criteria and event values using a prescribed format provided in the Task Order Model. Where in the task order model is this presented?	Instructions revised refer to document in RFP
6	CLIN Structure and Price Model	Price Instructions Tab, Item c & d. The six (6) month extension column will be pre-calculated to ½ of the final year's proposed prices. Which Tab should reflect the 6-month extension year to be included in the TEP?	Instructions revised, tab added for 6 month extension
7	CLIN Structure and Price Model	Price TO2 NS CLINs Tab. Are the SubCLIN items AA thru AG intended to be lines to provide option year pricing or are these intended to be PBP Milestones?	PBPs schedule updated to a severable CLIN approach see revised pricing models.
8	CLIN Structure and Price Model	Price TO2 NS CLINs Tab. There does not appear to be a place to provide non-severable task pricing by year. Is pricing by year required for non-severable tasks?	MPS developed after award will identify payment milestones showing distribution of tasks over the 10-yr PoP.
9	CLIN Structure and Price Model	Price TO2 NS CLINs Tab. CLINs are presented for four (4) Site Closures. Attachment 1 (site list) of the TO-2 PWS identifies six (6) sites for closure within the POP (ST020, SS005, CST011, SS025).	Clarified and corrected/updated.
10	CLIN Structure and Price Model	Severable Tasks. Base Year tab provides lines for each site. Opt Year Price Tabs do not include the lines for each site. Should the prices for Option years be provided by Site?	LTM CLINS may include multiple sites in the base years and option years for severable CLINS.

11	CLIN Structure and Price Model	Price TO1 Tab - CLIN 0006 and 0006AA. Is pricing to be provided for both CLIN 0006 and SubCLIN 0006AA or is CLIN 0006 the roll up CLIN.	Revised. Offerors are not expected to fill in these lines.
12	Section J Attachment 6	NTE Fully Burdened Labor Rate Table instructions Item e. Labor category qualifications and levels are given on the Qualifications & Definitions and Education & Experience tabs of the Fully Burdened Labor Rate Table. No data is provided on the tabs. Will the Government be providing this data?	Qualifications & Definitions and Education & Experience tabs will be provided.
13	Section J Attachment 6	Professional Compensation Plan Labor Model Instructions Item c. Provide Full Time Equivalents (FTE), base labor rates and fringe rates for each proposed professional LCAT by region. Are we to provide the number of anticipated full time personnel (FTEs) for each position shown during the life of the ID/IQ?	FTE column revised to "Offeror Labor Category". Do not provide a number, provide a category description/equivalent to the government terminology (same as on the LBR table under column of the same title).
14	Galena Region BECOS TO 2 PWS Attch 2	Some Galena Base-Specific Requirements appear to be outdated or are incorrect, including:

DP023 ROD has been signed

Site SS006 is intended to operate year-round with only a brief shut down during period of highest groundwater. Summer operation will include extraction from shallow vent wells only.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	15	CLIN Structure and Price Model	Attachment 1 (site list) of the TO-2 PWS identifies six sites for closure within the POP (ST020, SS022, SS018, SS005, CST011, SS025). The cost model "Price TO2 NS CLINs" tab only includes four of these sites (ST020, SS005, CST011, SS025). Please clarify: Does the Government expect zero RAO costs for these sites in CLIN 0008 after the SC date?	The site list will be revised prior to RFP release. The government defined expectations for SC sites after closure in the PWS and attachments.
	16	Galena-Alaska IDIQ
PWS	Service Summary and Deliverable Table -

Third row references PWS nonexistent Paragraph 2.12.

Last row - should reference be to PWS Paragraph 4.5? The PWS table has been updated to reference the correct paragraphs.

	17	Galena-Alaska IDIQ
PWS	Site DP023 ROD, RAWP, and remedy have been completed	Galena Site DP023 ROD and RAWP have been completed. The remedy was implemented in 2019 and results are pending.
	18	Galena Region BECOS TO 2 PWS Attachment 1	Site DP023 ROD, RAWP, and remedy have been completed	Galena Site DP023 ROD and RAWP have been completed. The remedy was implemented in 2019 and results are pending.
	19	Galena Region BECOS TO 2 PWS Attachment 1	For Sites SS018 and SS022 the Performance Objective is listed as RAO but the estimated SC dates are within the POP. Should PO be SC?	The RC and SC dates listed in TO 2 PWS Base Site list (Attch 1) are projected dates based on the Air Force’s assessment of the available data and may not be the actual RC and SC date. For sites where there is uncertainty achieving RC and SC during the PoP, the selected performance objective is RA-O or LTM as appropriate.
	20	Galena Alaska Region BECOS IDIQ PWS
Attachment_1	There are discrepancies between Attachment 1 to PWS included in Section C and TO-2 PWS Attachment 1. These include different anticipated dates to achieve RC/SC for CST011 and SS025.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	21	Section L	Table 2.2.2.1 Proposal Organization lists Pricing Narrative in Volume III but it is not listed in Section 5.1 Price Volume Organization. Should Volume III include a Pricing Narrative or should technical approach used to develop pricing be articulated in the Price Assumptions, Exceptions, and Rationale (Vol. III) or the Executive Summary of Volume IV?	"Pricing Narrative" removed.
	22	Section J	The following items included in the attachment list were not provided:

1. Team List Template

7. Subcontracting Plan Checklist	These items are removed.
	23	Galena Region BECOS TO 2 PWS Attachment 1	Remedies for several sites include either sulfate enhanced bioremediation or enhanced anaerobic bioremediation. Both rely on periodic injection of amendments into the subsurface. Per the cleanup plans the initial injections were based on a 5-year design life. Is reinjection included in TO-2 RAO activities or will reinjection be covered under future TOs?	Reinjections are integral to the remedy and are included as necessary to meet the site-specific Performance Objective.
	24	Galena Region BECOS TO 2 PWS Attch 2	Please describe the current condition of the Brown Bear tiller including age and hours run.	Information on the Brown Bear tiller is included in the annual landfarm O&M reports. The Brown Bear operator/mechanic works 10-hr days/6 days per week during the operating season.
	25	Galena Region BECOS TO 2 PWS Attch 2	What are typical maintenance requirements for the tractor and the tilling head?	Information on the operation of the Brown Bear tiller is included in the annual landfarm O&M reports and the google site. The Brown Bear tiller was purchased new by Ahtna (Anchorage) in 2016. The AF does not own the tiller.
	26	Galena Region BECOS TO 2 PWS Attch 2	How many hours per week of maintenance is required during the tilling season?	Information on the Brown Bear tiller is included in the annual landfarm O&M reports and the google site. The Brown Bear operator/mechanic works 10-hr days/6 days per week during the operating season.
	27	Galena Region BECOS TO 2 PWS Attch 2	Does the USAF expect any additional soil requiring landfarm treatment to be generated during the POP (besides that in landfarm stockpiles and the 1000 cy located on the airfield)?	The intention would be to address this in a separate TO.
	28	Galena Region BECOS TO 2 PWS Attch 2	Landfarm closure is included in the scope of TO-2. Based on the landfarm annual reports, the volume of soil treated annually decreased after ADEC Solid Waste changed the criteria for the soil t be used as cover material. Between 2016 and 2018 the average of volume of soil removed from the landfarm was 1,000 cy. Based on this treatment rate and the volume of soil remaining in the stockpiles, it appears landfarm operation will be required through the POP. Because of the uncertainty of the duration of operation, and the costs associated with landfarm closure, recommend that landfarm closure be included as a separate task order.	Clarified and corrected/updated. TO2 revised. Government anticipates landfarm operation will be required through the PoP.
	29	Section L	Please clarify if Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool should be used.	The PPI tool will not be utilized for this acquisition. Please submit your PPI IAW Sections L & M.
	30	General/PM	Will past electric power costs be made available to all bidders?	This information will be loaded to the Google site if available.

31	General/PM	Where should costs for landfarm operation and reporting be included? Should a separate CLIN be established for the landfarm?	The price model will be updated to include a separate CLIN for the landfarm costs.
32	Section M	How will the government evaluate the proposed PBP events if there is no information provided on technical approach? How will the government know if sufficient LOE is included in price to cover all the necessary work elements?	PBPs schedule updated to a severable CLIN approach see revised pricing models. It is the contractor's responsibility to propose the appropriate amount for the LOE IAW the requirements of the PWS.
33	Midwest PWS	Midwest BECOS - The KI Sawyer PWS states that "Sites SS017 and XE027 will be included in the event they do not achieve SC under current PBR contract ." Please advise how the offerors are expected to price the work associated with these sites. Should the offeror exclude costs assuming the sites achieve SC? If the sites do not achieve SC does the Government expect to award a separate TO or modification, as required?	Sites SS017 and XE027 have been removed from TO 2.
34	Midwest PWS	Midwest BECOS - The KI Sawyer PWS states that Site ST004 "is currently going through additional remediation actions for treatment of the free product plume with a goal of reaching Response Complete (RC). If the additional remedial action achieves its goal, then only limited free product monitoring, system decommissioning will be required at this site, in addition to annual LUC inspections and five-year review. If not, then the scope will continue toward RC, and include continued operations, monitoring, and maintenance of the current treatment system. " Please advise how the offerors are expected to price the work. Should we assume the system will achieve RC? Or should we assume the site does not achieve RC after BECOS award?	Assume system will achieve RC.
35	Midwest PWS	Midwest BECOS - The KI Sawyer PWS states that for Site XE027 is in the process of SC, and that … "Routine landfill cap and site maintenance and irrigation is the ongoing remedy at this site and will be required if the site cannot be closed under the current PBR." For pricing purposes, should the offeror assume the site will be closed under the current PBR?	Site XE027 has been removed from TO 2.
36	Midwest PWS	Midwest BECOS - The KI Sawyer PWS states that for Site FT007 is expected to close under the current PBR, but if not achieved, "annual LUCs and five-year reviews will be required for this site." For pricing purposes, should the offeror assume the site will be closed under the current PBR?	Site FT007 has been removed from TO 2.
37	Midwest PWS	Midwest BECOS - The Richards-Gebaur PWS states that "two sites may close (ST005 and SS006) prior to this contract, but if not will be included as specified in the site list. None of the three sites have met Response Complete (RC )." Please advise if the two sites are included in this contract?	Site ST005 and SS006 have been removed from TO 2.
38	Midwest PWS	Midwest BECOS, Richards-Gebaur PWS - Please provide Attachment 1, Remedial System Components.	Reference to Attachment 1 has been removed from TO 2 PWS.
39	Midwest PWS	Midwest BECOS, Chanute - FT021 – It is noted “Investigation and remediation of PFOS/PFOA excluded from this PBR”Will the investigation and remediation of PFOS/PFOA be conducted under a separate contract or as a future modification to this PBR?	The scope or content of future modifications or task orders issued under BECOS will be at the discretion of the government.
40	Midwest PWS	Midwest BECOS, Multipler locations. Will Alternative Objectives be utilized as the Performance Objective for any site included in this PBR?

Alternative Objective criteria:

Based on technical review of existing site conditions/activities, the AF placed sites in the category of Alternate Objective if one or more of the following conditions exist:

a) Achieving RC is expected to require substantially longer than 30 years

b) Achieving RC is unattainable with standard characterization and/or existing remediation technology due to technical or other limitations related to site conditions

c) Achieving RC is anticipated to require advanced site characterization technologies to improve the Conceptual Site Model (CSM), determine appropriate remedial technology, and/or characterize recently regulated contaminants	This verbiage is not part of the PWS. Alternative Objectives are not apart of BECOS requirements.
	41	Midwest PWS	Midwest BECOS, Grissom - FT001 & FT002 – It is noted “Site was expected to close in current PBR, as trends were decreasing, but due to recent unexpected increase in one well A PBR mod is underway to implement injection remedy but site cannot reach SC within current PBR as 8 quarters of verification monitoring required to close site after reaching MCL. Contaminated with PFAS”. Is remediation of known PFAS included as part of the SC Performance Objective under this PBR?	Investigation and remediation of PFOS/PFOA is excluded from TO 2. The note makes the contractor aware that PFAS contamination is present which may impact waste management.
	42	Central South PWS	In the site list spreadsheet we received, the CST048 (ST792 Leach Field) and COW049 (OWS 43) sites are mentioned for Reese, but those sites are not discussed in the PWS Attch 2 Word file, which mentions one primary site (we assume LF003) plus seven additional closed sites with LUCs. Will annual LUC inspections and Five-Year reviews be required for the CST048 and COW049 sites at Reese?	TO 2, Attachment 2, revised.
	43	Central South PWS	Recent 7003 Order sampling reports do not appear to be available on the AR for Reese. Can these be provided to bidders?	The information will be uploaded to the google site.
	44	Central South PWS	Can more information be provided on Reese well JS17-DW014? Does the AF have right-of entry to the area around the well? Have any preliminary remedies for TCE contamination remaining in the well been developed or discussed with the landowner, and is it acceptable to introduce reagents/amendments for remediation directly into this well?	TO 2 revised to exclude implementing any additional remedy at well JS17-DW014.
	45	Central South PWS	We are unclear re: the duration of remaining 7003 Order monitoring at Reese. Is it correct that the 7003 Order monitoring will continue for the entire PoP unless concentrations of TCE in all 7003 Order wells are reduced to less than 5 ug/L TCE for four consecutive semiannual sampling events? What documents will be required from the Contractor to close out the 7003 Order if the correct requirements are met?	Sampling will continue throughout the duration of the PoP. TO 2 revised to exclude closeout of the 7003 Order.
	46	Section L	Section L, 3.1 General Instructions paragraph (b) says offerers are to complete Section 1 of the PPQ and, along with a cover letter, email these to our Points of Contact. We assume this refers to the standard PPQ form/template typically provided with RFPs. Or, are we required to provide the “Attachment BECOS Relevancy PPQ Draft RFP” to our clients to complete?	Offerors must follow instructions in Sections L & M for submittal of BECOS relevancy PPQ. Other non-BECOS PPQs will not be accepted.
	47	NorCal IDIQ PWS	NorCal IDIQ PWS Attachment 1 Base Site List: Please note the following discrepancies: SD057-OWS 7019 and 30 Privatized Sites are listed as LTM in the Base Site List; however, they are listed as RAO in the IDIQ Schedule B CLINs.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	48	NorCal TO 2 PWS Attachment 1	NorCal TO 2 PWS Attachment 1 - Site List: Castle sites SD009, SS102, SS013, and SS021 state "Closure request submitted to CVRWQCB, closure under LTCP pending" in TO 2 Site List Performance Objective; however, the TO 2 Price Model and IDIQ Site List states the Performance Objective is "LTM" for these sites. Please clarify if annual LTM is required for these sites.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	49	NorCal TO 2 PWS Attachment 1	NorCal TO 2 PWS Attachment 1 - Site List: Mather SD057 RC and SC dates are FY59 in the TO 2 Site List, but RC is FY24 and SC is Indefinite in the IDIQ Site List. Please clarify.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	50	NorCal TO 2 PWS Attachment 1	NorCal TO 2 PWS Attachment 1 - Site List: Mather WP012 RC and SC dates are FY35 in the TO 2 Site List, but listed as FY27 in the IDIQ Site List. Please clarify.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	51	NorCal Section B/Price Model	NorCal Section B/Price Model: For Castle sites OT029, OT030, and CG041, please define what scope is considered severable work (CLIN 0008) vs. non-severable work (CLINs 0009, 0010, and 0011), and therefore, what is to be priced as part of TO 2 and what is not.	In general, for all regions, the CLINs included in the IDIQ schedule B are for all known sites included as part of the general scope of the IDIQ. The scope or content of TO 2 may not include all IDIQ sites and associated CLINs. See TO2 PWS Attch 1 Site List for site specific requirements to be priced as part of TO 2. The Severable vs. Non-severable nature of the work is reflected in the performance objective identified for each site; costs for each site should be allocated to the correct CLIN associated with the performance objective.
	52	NorCal Section B/Price Model	NorCal Section B/Price Model: For Mather sites SD057, SD057-Bldg 4260, WP007, WP012, LF004-GW, and SD057-OWS7019, please define what scope is considered severable work (CLIN 0013) vs. non-severable work (CLINs 0014 through 0019), and therefore, what is to be priced as part of TO 2 and what is not.	In general, for all regions, the CLINs included in the IDIQ schedule B are for all known sites included as part of the general scope of the IDIQ. The scope or content of TO 2 may not include all IDIQ sites and associated CLINs. See TO2 PWS Attch 1 Site List for site specific requirements to be priced as part of TO 2. The Severable vs. Non-severable nature of the work is reflected in the performance objective identified for each site; costs for each site should be allocated to the correct CLIN associated with the performance objective.
	53	NorCal Section B/Price Model	NorCal Section B/Price Model: For Mather site SD057-Bldg 4260, please define what scope is considered severable work (CLIN 0013) vs. non-severable work (CLIN 0015), and therefore, what is to be priced as part of TO 2 and what is not.	In general, for all regions, the CLINs included in the IDIQ schedule B are for all known sites included as part of the general scope of the IDIQ. The scope or content of TO 2 may not include all IDIQ sites and associated CLINs. See TO2 PWS Attch 1 Site List for site specific requirements to be priced as part of TO 2. The Severable vs. Non-severable nature of the work is reflected in the performance objective identified for each site; costs for each site should be allocated to the correct CLIN associated with the performance objective.
	54	NorCal Section B/Price Model	NorCal Section B/Price Model: For McClellan sites WP068, LF010, CG402, and 30 privatized sites, please define what scope is considered severable work (CLIN 0021) vs. non-severable work (CLINs 0022 through 0025), and therefore, what is to be priced as part of TO 2 and what is not.	In general, for all regions, the CLINs included in the IDIQ schedule B are for all known sites included as part of the general scope of the IDIQ. The scope or content of TO 2 may not include all IDIQ sites and associated CLINs. See TO2 PWS Attch 1 Site List for site specific requirements to be priced as part of TO 2. The Severable vs. Non-severable nature of the work is reflected in the performance objective identified for each site; costs for each site should be allocated to the correct CLIN associated with the performance objective.
	55	NorCal Section B/Price Model	NorCal Section B/Price Model: Schedule B IDIQ has sites listed in CLINs 0008, 0013, and 0021 that are not included in the same CLINs in the TO 2 Price Proposal. Will these sites be added in modifications in the future, or be issued under new TOs with the same CLINs?	In general, for all regions, the CLINs included in the IDIQ schedule B are for known sites included as part of the general scope of the IDIQ. The scope or content of TO 2 may not include all IDIQ sites and associated CLINs. The Air Force will evaluate the most appropriate contracting method for future projects at that time.
	56	NorCal Section B/Price Model	NorCal Section B/Price Model: Mather CLIN 0012 has two sites (OT029 and OT030) that are not included on the Base Site List. Please clarify.	The sites included in the IDIQ sites list are known sites included as part of the general scope of the IDIQ.
	57	NorCal Section B/Price Model	NorCal Section B/Price Model: TO 2 Non-Severable CLINS: Please confirm that all payment milestones for all 10 years (or until objective is achieved) are to be included for PBP SubCLINs.	PBP SubCLINs have been removed from the CLIN Structure / Price Model. MPS develop after award will identify payment milestones showing distribution of tasks over the 10-yr PoP.
	58	NorCal Section B/Price Model	NorCal Section B/Price Model: Price/Task Order Model Instructions references a "Six (6) Month Extension column;" however, there is no separate worksheet for a 6-month period. Please clarify.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	59	NorCal Section B/Price Model	NorCal Section B/Price Model / Price Proposal: please note that all the options have the same title in row 7 of the Excel file that reference the base year instead of the option year ("BECOS Task Order 2 (TO2) Price Proposal severable items base year").	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	60	NorCal Section B/Price Model	NorCal Section B/Price Model / TO 2 Price: Please confirm that the base year price for CLINs 0007 and 0012 will be $0 since there is no difference between the sites listed in the CLIN and the "Sites not priced in Base Yr."	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	61	NorCal Section B/Price Model	NorCal Section B/Price Model / TO 2 Price: The Base Site List has more than one site listed for some Site ID numbers. Please clarify if CLIN 0013 should include SD057-Main Base/SAC Area Plume and SD057-Building 4260, LF004-Northeast Plume (groundwater only) and LF004-Landfill 04, as well as WP007 and WP012. Note that LF004-Landfill 04 is classified as LTM, not RAO in the Base Site List.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	62	NorCal Section B/Price Model	NorCal Section B/Price Model / TO 2 Price: Mather site SD057 is listed in both CLIN 0012 (LTM) and 0013 (RAO). Please clarify the difference since both the Main Base/SAC Area Plume and Building 4260 are classified as RAO in the Base Site List.	For Site IDs (e.g., SD057) that have been separated into different areas or media, the site phase and proposed site objective are for that specific area or media in the Base Site List.
	63	Section J Attachments 5 and 6	Attachments 5 and 6: Note that most of the worksheets in the provided Excel workbooks are not setup to meet the font and margin requirements stated in Section L. Please confirm that we may format these worksheets using the "Fit" function within Excel so that all columns may print, without regard to the effective font size when printed.	Please provide the excel files in the excel format provided. Sheets will be "locked" for fill-in only at RFP.
	64	Section J Attachment 1	Attachment 6: Several labor categories listed in the Fully Burdened Labor Table do not appear to be relevant to this contract scope (e.g., Architect, Fire Protection Engineer, Urban Planner). Would the government consider deleting these categories so that we do not have to add subcontractors just to cover these specialized requirements?	The number of LCATs is reduced/updated.
	65	Section J Attachment 6	Attachment 6: There are several labor categories that we expect to use rarely, if at all, for the contract scope, whereas there are a few labor categories that we expect to have multiple FTEs. The TPP is weighting each labor category equally, which does not reflect a realistic evaluation of the prices that the government will receive on future task orders. Please consider a TPP that weights labor categories that are expected to be highly utilized more heavily.	The number of LCATs is reduced/updated. All LCATs receive the same weight/equal in importance for evaluation.
	66	Section J Attachment 1	Attachment 6: Several labor categories listed are subject to wage determinations. Please provide wage determinations.	Wage determinations will be provided.
	67	Section J Attachment 2	Attachment 6: Compensation Plan Model: It is unclear what information should be entered in column B versus column F. Is "Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Proposed by Labor Category" the same as the "Offeror's Labor Category" on the Fully Burdened Labor Table? If, not please advise what information is to be entered in column B. If it is the same, please advise what information is to be entered into column F.	FTE column revised to "Offeror Labor Category". Do not provide a number, provide a category description/equivalent to the government terminology (same as on the LBR table under column of the same title).
	68	Section J Attachment 3	Attachment 6: Compensation Plan Model: The titles of columns C and D both state "Information"; based on the calculation in column E, we assume that these only contain a dollar value in column C and a percentage in column D, and that no other information is to be included. Please confirm.	Column C will have a dollar value, Column D a percentage. The term "information" is removed.
	69	Section J Attachment 4	Attachment 6: Compensation Plan Model: On the bottom of the worksheet under "Education & Qualification (E&Q) Level", there is a "Journeyman" listed. Please confirm that this should be "Mid Level" instead of Journeyman since there are no Journeyman labor categories.	Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) information (to include the referenced items) removed.
	70	Section J Attachment 5	Attachment 6: Compensation Plan Model: On the bottom of the worksheet under "Education & Qualification (E&Q) Level", there is an "SME" listed; however, there are no labor categories defined as SMEs. Please confirm that SMEs are not applicable.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	71	Section J Attachment 6	Attachment 6: The instructions state that labor category qualifications and level definitions are included on the “Qualifications & Definitions” and the “Education & Experience” tabs; however, both of these tabs are blank. Section L also has conflicting information on whether offerors are to provide this information or whether the government will provide the information (L.4.5.e and L.4.5.1.2.e). Please clarify.	The government will provide the information on the “Qualifications & Definitions” and the “Education & Experience” tabs.
	72	Post Award Conference TO 1 PWS: Per TO 1 PWS and Section B/Price Model	TO 1 PWS: Per TO 1 PWS and Section B/Price Model, this task will include a post-award conference in San Antonio, with an option for a regional post-award conference. The PWS includes requirements for a CPSMR. Shall we assume that both meetings will be held within a month, so only 1 CPSMR is required?	Revisions made to TO 1 PWS and Section B/Price Model refer to RFP documents.
	73	TO 1 PWS:	TO 1 PWS: Please confirm that paragraph 2.6.3 is for the optional regional meeting.	Revisions made to TO 1 PWS and Section B/Price Model refer to RFP documents.
	74	Section L	Section L: Note that Table 2.2.2.1 Proposal Organization for both Volumes II and III does not match 4.1 Volume Organization and 5.0 Volume Organization, respectively, so may cause some confusion and differences among offerors' proposals.	Thank you for your input. The Gov't will clarify and make necessary changes to those sections upon final RFP release.
	75	Section L	Section L Table 2.2.2.1 Proposal Organization: It is unclear what information goes under "Contact Information" versus "Authorized Offeror Personnel/Contact Information." Please clarify.	Contact information may be provided for a person working the proposal coordination which may differ from the authorized personnel who sign on the company's behalf. Please complete both sections.
	76	Section L	Section L Table 2.2.2.1 Proposal Organization: Please clarify what information, if any, offerors should include in Volume III under the tabs called "Real Property and Base Support Requirements" and "Applicable Documents."	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	77	Section L	Section L Table 2.2.2.1 Proposal Organization: Please provide the Financial Capability Risk Assessment Pre-Review Form.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	78	Section L	Section L.3.1 General Instructions references a PPQ Cover Letter. Attachment 3 only provided the Past Performance Questionnaire Record and no cover letter. Please provide the cover letter format, if applicable and required.	The cover letter is the first section on the PPQ attachment.
	79	Section L	Section L.3.1 (d) states that any signed prime/subcontractor Authorization and Consent Letters (if applicable) shall be placed in an appendix of Volume I. Please provide instructions for the content of the Authorization and Consent Letters.	The content is as determined appropriate or required by each offeror.
	80	Section L	Section L.3.3.2 No more than two PPIs are allowed for "subcontractor/teaming partners," and the instructions state that we shall submit PPIs for each subcontractor. This implies that we are limited to no more than 2 subcontractors, since each one must submit a PPI. Please confirm that this should be teaming partner rather than subcontractor, since offerors may have many subcontractors that are not considered teaming partners, such as laboratories, drillers, etc.	Language is revised. Reference to submit "all" is removed.
	81	Section L	Section L.4.5 a states "Team members (primes, subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners) may propose separate FFP Fully Burdened Labor Rate Tables for each proposed region." Please confirm that this refers to subcontractors or other firms with teaming agreements or letters of intent, and that non-team subcontractors will NOT be held to these rates.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
	82	Section L	Section L.4.5 a: if we submit different rate tables for each team member, will the government only evaluate the TPP of the prime contractor? If not, should offerors submit a summary table that weights the rates depending on the % of expected participation of each team member to provide a total team TPP?	The government is evaluating the TPP of all team members. Do not submit weighting based upon participation.
	83	Section L	Section L.4.5 c states "NTE Fully Burdened FFP labor rates shall include hourly base rates, indirect rates and profit, plus out-year escalation, as applicable, for the base year (Fiscal Year (FY) 1 and nine (9) FY option years). Each FY is the same as the Government’s Fiscal Year: 1 October through 30 September." The period of performance for NorCal TO 2 starts in July 2020. Therefore, is the Base Year for the labor rates only from July 2020 through September 2020?	Revised Section L, any performance prior to FY21 will utilized FY21 rates. Revised TO2 spreadsheets, pricing and rates will be IAW FYs.
	84	Section L	Section L.4.5.1 c states "Each regions Compensation Plan Model shall identify hourly salaries (base rates) and fringe rates by LCAT and provide mapping of Offerors proposed rates to Offerors support documentation as well as mapping of Offerors labor categories to the Governments anticipated labor categories." In Attachment 6, is the mapping to the proposed rates to be provided in column F and the mapping of Offerors labor categories in column B?	Updated titles to match/clarify the columns on each sheet that are to be mapped/same input.
	85	Section L	Section L.4.5.1 e: Please confirm that Compensation Plan Narratives and Models only need to be submitted for firms with teaming agreements or letters of intent, and that other non-team subcontractors do NOT need to submit this information.	Prime contractor and team members confirmed; other non-team subcontractors do not need to submit this information.
	86	Section L	Section L.4.5.1.2 g: Please confirm that backup is only needed for the proposed compensation, and not the proposed hourly rates (e.g., direct labor weighting factors, indirect rates).	Title updated to, “Fully Burdened Labor Tables and Professional Employee Compensation Plan Model”

Excel Model contains both the Fully Burdened Labor Rate Tables and separate Compensation Plan Models for each region.

- Provide support for the proposed compensation (i.e. hourly salaries) the “Instructions” tab and sec L, 4.5.1, para g. Provide recent surveys and/or studies from professional, public, or private organizations (e.g., Watson & Wyatt, Economic Research Institute, Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.) used to support the proposed compensation.

87	Section L	Section L: Section J – Attachments: Please confirm that offerors should include all the listed attachments in our proposal. If so, please confirm (1) for the PPQ only the first page of the template would be completed since completed PPQs will be returned directly to the government. Please confirm that attachments (3) and (4) would only be templates since Volume III is being submitted 30 days before Volume II is submitted.	To reduce confusion, the Section J reference is removed from the Contract Information volume. Section J attachments should be completed and submitted IAW Section L per the instructions in each volume and according to that volume's deadline for submission.
88	Section L	Section L: Please confirm that the following requirements should be addressed in paragraph "n) Accounting System" as noted in 5.0 Volume Organization: Estimating Methodology, Estimating System, Purchasing System, and Accounting System.	Language removed.
89	Section M	Section M.3.0 Factor 2 – Past Performance: If CPARS are not allowed in lieu of PPQs, how will CPARS vs PPQs for the same project be weighted in the past performance evaluation?	Confirmed CPARS are provided in addition to PPQs and both will be utilized in the evaluation.
90	Section M	Section M.3.0 Factor 2 – Past Performance: PPIs will be evaluated in accordance with the relevancy matrix located in Attachment 4 as well as additional criteria listed in Section M (similarity, complexity, and diversity of tasks, type of effort, scope, value, geographic dispersion, and performance period). Higher relevance will be assessed for projects that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, described in this solicitation; projects greater than $5,000,000; and projects more complex in nature. Attachment 4 has very specific definitions and criteria that determines if a project is Very Relevant. Please clarify if some projects may be considered more Very Relevant than other Very Relevant projects based on the Section M criteria not listed in Attachment 4; and therefore, a proposal may be rated higher even though multiple contractors demonstrate five Very Relevant projects per Attachment 4. If so, please also clarify if a project may be more Very Relevant if it scores 5 out of 5 criteria versus 3 out of 5 criteria in each of the three areas (Program Management and Quality Assurance, Regulatory Interaction and Stakeholder Coordination, and Analysis and Data Management).	PPI will be rated IAW the relevancy matrix. PPI will be rated IAW the DoD standards. PPI will be rated IAW criteria included in Section M. All of these criteria will determine the relevancy rating.
91	Section M	Section M.4.0 Factor 3 – Cost/Price: How will the TPP vs. TEP be evaluated? Will one be weighted more heavily?	The evaluation information has been updated in both Section L & M.
92	Section M	Section M.4.0 Factor 3 – Cost/Price: Will the price for TO 1 be evaluated?	No, TO1 NTEs will be provided in RFP.
93	Section M	Section M.4.0 Factor 3 – Cost/Price: Task Order 2 pricing evaluation states that "The Government will evaluate the proposed PBP arrangement event prices as provided in the Task Order Model. PBP event prices will be automatically totaled and included in the TEP for each region." If the PBP arrangement will be evaluated separately from the TEP, please provide the basis of evaluation. Also provide any restrictions the government may have for BECOS PBPs, as 772/AFCEC has put restrictions on milestone payments on past PBRs.	PBPs schedule updated to a severable CLIN approach see revised pricing models.
94	PPQ	PPQ: Per Section L.3.1 (b), contractors are to complete Section 1 of the PPQ before providing it to clients. How much detail is expected to be provided in this response? PPQs for other agencies typically only require a brief description of a sentence or two to provide a broad overview of the project. It is unclear how much weight the PPQ will be given to determine relevancy vs. the PPI for Section M criteria that is not included in Attachment 4 Relevancy Matrix/PPQ questions.	Offerors should provide sufficient detail for the POC intended to complete a PPQ which explains the type of services the offeror provided under the referenced contract number for the PPQ. Generally, a brief description or overview of the scope of the work performed.
95	PPQ	PPQ Section 2 has the following statement: "The Government will consider a higher relevancy rating on projects that exceed $5,000,000. The Government will consider a higher relevancy rating on projects that are more complex in nature." It is not a question and there is no subsequent requirement for a response to this section. Please clarify if the clients are expected to provide the dollar value in response to this section. If not, please consider deleting this statement to alleviate any confusion.	The PPQ has been updated to indicate what information is needed in each PPQ submission.
96	PPQ	PPQ: We note that the relevancy questions in the PPQ mirror Attachment 4 Relevancy Matrix. We are very concerned about any subsequent changes that may be made to the PPQ following issuance of the final RFP. As noted in our response to RFI #4, this detailed PPQ is putting a large burden onto our clients (particularly in December during the holidays and potential government shutdown), and requiring them to complete the form more than once because of changes to the relevancy requirements is not realistic.	The Government does not anticipate any subsequent changes to the PPQ following the issuance of a final RFP. The request date for PPQ submissions is now anticipated to be in Jan-Feb 2020.
97	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region: Confirm the Contractor is responsible for payment of the utilities for the treatment systems. If so, please provide the past 12 months of utility bills for the active PBR contracts at the three former installations.	Contractors are responsible for RAO to include payment of utilities. Available information will be loaded to the Google site.
98	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region: Because this is a 10-year contract, we expect that extraction well and treatment system equipment may be need to be replaced or updated during the POP. We consider this to be a huge unknown and variable based on the information available at this time. To avoid any potential contract disputes, can the government provide the status/age of equipment, component descriptions, or some other basis for estimating the price for maintaining these systems?	Available information about extraction wells and systems has been uploaded to the Google site.
99	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region: Confirm that Five-Year Review reports can be written using EPA's recently issued abbreviated report format.	Government Anticipates contractors will propose according to the U.S. EPA streamlined five-year review template.
100	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region: Confirm if all landfills require aerial topographic surveys and landfill subsidence repairs.	Only the landfills at Mather and Castle require topographic surveys and landfill subsidence repairs. For Mather, refer to the 2018 Annual Post-Closure Landfill Inspection and Gas Monitoring Report (Google drive); Final Closure And Post-Closure Maintenance Plan For The Landfill Operable Unit (AR 2832); and Final Fourth Five-Year Review Report, former Mather AFB (AR 467610). For Castle, surveys are required every 5 years (refer to the Fifth Final Five-Year Review Report for former Castle AFB (AR 585780) from 2019. TO 2 Attachment 2 for McClellan has been revised to exclude topographic surveys for McClellan landfills.
101	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region: Are Annual IC Compliance Reports a Contractor requirement for the three facilities?	Per the TO 2 PWS Attch 1 and 2, annual LUC inspections are required at Castle and Mather. The TO 2 PWS Attch 2 for McClellan has been corrected to be consistent with Attch 1 and remove annual LUC inspections as these are performed by AF personnel.
102	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region / McClellan: Much more detail is needed on the operation of the radiological CU at McClellan. Please provide the expected quantity and frequency (number of days) of accepted waste to be delivered to the radiological CU for each year of the contract.	TO 2 Attachment 1 for NorCal Region and Attachment 2 for McClellan have been revised to exclude receipt and placement of accepted waste in the CU along with opening and winterization due to the uncertainty associated with the frequency and quantity of accepted waste. Only CU O&M is included in TO 2.
103	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region / McClellan: Confirm if CG402 is correctly identified as a McClellan RAO site to be addressed under this contract. If so, please identify the GFI that outlines the RA-O requirements to be performed.	CG402 is not included in the Final RFP for TO 2.
104	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region / McClellan: Confirm that McClellan Business Park's remediation contractor is conflicted out of proposing on the NorCal BECOS.	The government's evaluation and decisions regarding conflict of interest are handled according to applicable regulation. Companies aware of a conflict shall act accordingly. OCI will be handled on a case by case basis.
105	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region: Considering TO2 involves the remediation of PFAS, please provide all pertinent Air Force guidance on PFAS to complete this requirement (sampling/waste handling/remedies/etc.).	The government will provide current available information. Contractors are responsible for adherence to current guidelines IAW the PWS requirements/sections on regulations. The contractor will work with the AF during performance in order to ensure proper guidelines are followed. Available information will be posted to the Google site.
106	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region: Confirm that responding to Underground Service Alert (USA) tickets is a requirement for the sites. If so, how many USA tickets are typically received monthly.	For McClellan typically 8-10 tickets per day; however, most are off-site and the actual responses required is 2 per day. For Mather, 8-10 tickets per day (approximately 200 per month). For Castle, 2-3 tickets per week.
107	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region/Castle: Please provide the anticipated number and depths of landfill dry wells to be replaced.	Landfill 4 (LF007) originally had 6 wells, now has 4; Landfill 5 (LF008) originally had 4 wells, still has 4. Assume all 10 wells need to be replaced. Assume 170 ft. bgs.
108	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region: Confirm that the Contractor will not be responsible for vandalism of the RA-O systems.	Contractors are required to take reasonable steps to ensure facilities are secure and safe. Site Access and Work Site Coordination shall be in accordance with PWS Paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7. Damages will be evaluated on a case by case basis IAW procedures outlined in the PWS.

109	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region: Provide the approximate number of submersible extraction well pumps replaced annually for each of the three former installations.	Available information about submersible extraction well pumps has been uploaded to the Google site.
110	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region / McClellan and Mather: Provide the current software (SCADA, etc.) and computer hardware for the groundwater treatment system operations.	Available information about current software has been uploaded to the google site.
111	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region / McClellan and Mather: Provide the date the groundwater treatment plant influent/effluent pumps and blowers were last installed/replaced.	Available information about groundwater treatment plant influent/effluent pumps and blowers has been uploaded to the google site.
112	NorCal PWS	NorCal Region / McClellan: Provide the site names and status of the "30 privatized sites" and the scope of services that will be required to be performed.	The 30 privatized sites are not included in the Final RFP for TO 2.
113	Acquisition Schedule	In general, the timelines are acceptable based on the assumptions that the background documents, site-specific performance objectives, CLIN/subCLIN/Task Order Price Schedule for each Region are made available to all offerors prior to or, at a minimum, with the release of the draft RFP to Industry. We also request that the Air Force evaluate and consider the timeframes and due dates in relation to the holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year).	Thank you for your input. The Gov't will clarify and make necessary changes upon final RFP release.
114	Sections L & M	In general, Sections L & M for this solicitation are what we would expect to see for a ID/IQ Single Task Order Contract (SATOC). Historically, we have seen a seed project associated with a RFP and a key factor in the evaluation of the SATOC (or MATOC) award. For the BECOS, the seed project(s) are task orders 1 and 2. However, the award of the seed project for all DoD contracts has been best-value based on a trade-off among the requirements of the base contract (e.g., past experience/past performance, management approach, key personnel), the seed project (e.g., technical and management approach), and price (e.g., labor rates for the base contract and price for the seed project). Since the Air Force is not requiring an approach for the seed project, it appears that the award of task order 2 will be based solely on price.	It is the government's intent to award to a highly qualified and technically capable firm through an evaluation of demonstrated successful past performance of similar complex efforts.
115	General/PM	We wonder how the Government will ensure it will achieve its objectives for the BECOS, as stated in the RFI Background Section, of maintaining regulatory selected remedies, implementing optimization to enhance remedial progress, and advance sites to completion in a cost effective manner without reviewing the approach and tasks the offeror proposes to implement at each site.	It is the government's intent to award to a highly qualified and technically capable firm through an evaluation of demonstrated successful past performance of similar complex efforts.
116	Acquisition Schedule	Given the short timeframe allowed for potential offerors to respond to the draft PWS (3 working days), please confirm that an additional timeframe for questions will be provided after the release of the RFP.	Clarified and corrected/updated.
117	PPQ	Please consider using the standard DoD Past Performance Questionnaire.	The Government has determined utilization of a PPQ tailored to BECOS requirements is best for this acquisition.
118	Section L	Section L, Paragraph 1(b) - Please identify the FAR or DFAR clause that permits the Air Force to limit the number of BECOS contracts an offeror may pursue.	The paragraph you reference neither constitutes a restraint on competition nor an action prohibited by the FAR/DFAR.

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Dec 6, 2019.