04162020_FA8903_20_R_0011 Northeast RFP Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA890320R0011
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Environmental Construction and Optimization Services (BECOS) in the Northeast Region. The solicitation is for environmental remediation and long-term monitoring services at multiple Department of the Air Force installations in the Northeast Region, including Griffiss Air Force Base, Plattsburgh Air Force Base, and Pease Air Force Base. Key services required include long-term monitoring, remedial action operations, site closeouts, and five-year review preparations. The period of performance is from July 2020 to July 2030. Pricing is to be provided for base year and four option years of services. The solicitation is set aside for small businesses. Responses to offeror questions provide clarification on proposal submission requirements, past performance questionnaires, task order pricing models, and remedial action objectives and monitoring plans for specific sites.
View the file
Other files
Show all 50
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Q # | Document Reference | RFP QUESTIONS | Document Reference | GOV'T RESPONSE | RESPONSE DATE |
| 1 | Task Order 1 | There is no Price Model for Task Order 1. Where/how are offerors to price travel, support, and attendance at the kick-off meetings to meet the requirements of Task Order 1? Two meetings are required - one at AFCEC in San Antonio and one in a location "central" to the installations in the Region. | Task Order 1 | Confirmed, offerors do not need to include pricing for TO1. The not to exceed amount for TO1 NorthEast is $25,000. | |
| 2 | PPQs | There are many offerors that will be bidding on more than one BECOS contract as either a prime or a sub and likely using the same projects as evidence of past performance. It is a huge burden on our DoD clients, including AFCEC personnel managing the current PBRs, to have to submit PPQ multiple times. Since all PPQs must be returned directly to the Air Force, we request the Air Force allow the person completing the PPQ or the Contractor to indicate somewhere on the PPQ form the BECOS contracts where that project/past performance information will be submitted. | PPQs | Coordinate with your POC that is submitting PPQs to request they change the region and submit. The same PPQ that is required IAW Section L can be submitted for different BECOS regions. | |
| 3 | Section L Proposal Submittal Instructions page 6 and page 7 | Section 2.4 states that offerors are to submit their proposal via DoD Safe. Section 2.5 states that the proposal is to be submitted via email to the email addresses identified in that section. Please clarify how proposals are to be submitted -via DoD SAFE or via email | Section L Proposal Submittal Instructions page 6 and page 7 | Proposals will be accepted by email. The DoD SAFE link is provided for offerors that elect to use DoD SAFE. | |
| 4 | Section L Page 9 Section 3.5 | Requires signed prime/sub authorization and consent letters. What are these letters? Does the Air Force have a format for these letters? | Section L Page 9 Section 3.5 | Letters may be submitted in format determined by contractor. Letters are if one company is submitting past performance information for another company and that company is requested to provide consent. Indicates the submitting company is authorized to have the information and provide it to the government. | |
| 5 | Section L Page 10, Section 4.2 | Since the work is to be performed at multiple installations and from the offeror and team partner offices, please explain what is needed for the labor surplus area designation. | Section L Page 10, Section 4.2 | As the solicitation is already a small business set aside, it is not necessary to provide the labor surplus area designation but offerors may provide this information to help the government identify areas of high unemployment/economic need within the region. | |
| 6 | Section L, Page 11, Section 4.5 | The OCI Mitigation Plan requires a company with previous work experience at a site at the installations in the Northeast BECOS to provide the following information: site, scope of work, specific document titles and descriptions, and contract or task order number. Since no timeframe was provided, for some offerors this requirement is excessive and documents that have been produced should have been posted by the Air Force to the Administrative Record. We request that this requirement be revised to allow contractors to attest that all contract-mandated Final deliverables have been submitted to the Air Force. | Section L, Page 11, Section 4.5 | For clarification, please provide any applicable items that are not publicly available. Documents on the administrative record are available to the public. | |
| 7 | Section L, page 12, Section 4.8 | To ensure that all required clauses are submitted, please identify the specific clauses in Section H and I that are to be submitted by the offeror. | SF33 | Refer to the SF33 Sections H and I for required information. | |
| 8 | Section L, page 13, Section 4.8 | Please clarify the requirement for Section K on the top of page 13. Are offerors to complete the on-line provisions and print the page? | SF33 Amendment | 52.204-8 to be added to SF33 for contractor fill-in. Amendment forthcoming. | |
| 9 | Section L, pages 13-14, Section 4.9.1 | Please confirm the descriptions of the estimating system, purchasing system, and accounting system is only required from the prime. | Section L | Only information to verify an adequate accounting system from the prime will be needed. Amendment forthcoming to clarify and remove estimating and purchasing system infromation requested. | |
| 10 | Section L, page 16, Section 5.2e and 5.2f | Please clarify the requirements of paragraph e and the apparent disconnect between paragraphs e and f. Paragraph e requires the offeror to identify any assumption and exceptions to the pricing requirements. Generally, offerors are eliminated from the competition if they identify assumptions and exceptions. This requirement in paragraph e is especially confusing in light of paragraph f which states to annotate "none" if no assumptions or exceptions apply. |
1) Will offerors be eliminated from competition if they provide their assumptions for the non-severable/severable CLINs?
2) If the purpose of the assumptions (as stated in paragraph f) is to assist in price evaluation, is "none" an appropriate and acceptable response? Section L, pages 17-18, Section 5.5 It is not stated that offerors are eliminated if they identify assumptions.
Offerors shall annotate “none,” only if no assumptions or exceptions apply.
Information provided for exceptions and assumptions will assist the price evaluation team in determining completeness, reasonableness, balance, and professional compensation plan realism.
11 Section L, pages 17-18, Section 5.5 Please confirm that if only one FBLR is being proposed for the entire team, the team members are not required to map their LCATs to the Government LCATs. Section L, page 20 Section 5.6.2c and 5.6.2i If the team is proposing one (1) team FBLR Table the LCAT descriptions entered in the FBLR Table column B "Offeror's Labor Category" will be the descriptions entered in the "Contractor Labor Category" for the Compensation Plan Model.
As there will be only one (1) FBLR and LCAT description for the entire team, team base hourly salary support data must clearly link the team LCAT descriptions in the FBLR Table to the base hourly rates proposed in the Compensation Plan Model for the team LCAT descriptions that will be incorporated into the basic contract.
Therefore separate team members are not required or allowed to enter their unique LCAT descriptions if proposing one (1) team FBLR Table.
| 12 | Section L, page 20 Section 5.6.2c and 5.6.2i | Please confirm the mapping of proposed base hourly salaries by LCAT to offerors support documentation and a mapping of the offerors LCAT to the Governments anticipated LCAT is only required from the team members proposing FBLRs. | Section L, page 20 Section 5.6.2i | Correct: If proposing FBLRs from separate team members in the FBLR Table each team member shall submit a separate Compensation Plan Model. |
| 13 | Section L, page 20 Section 5.6.2i | Please confirm the mapping of offeror LCATs to the Government LCATs and to the offeror's base hourly salary support data is only for those LCATs in the Government-furnished Compensation Plan Model. | Professional Compensation Plan Model column D | Selected Government LCATs have been provided in the Compensation Plan Model. Only some LCATs have been selected for evaluation. |
Offeror's base hourly salary support data is only required for LCATs selected for Compensation Plan evaluation.
| 14 | Section L, page 11 | ||||
| Section 4.5 | The OCI Mitigation Plan requires a company with previous work experience at a site at the installations in the Central South BECOS to provide the following information: site, scope of work, specific document titles and descriptions, and contract or task order number. Since no timeframe was provided, for some offerors this requirement is excessive and documents that have been produced should have been posted by the Air Force to the Administrative Record. We requested that this requirement be revised to allow contractors to attest that all contract-mandated Final deliverables have been submitted to the Air Force. If this approach is not acceptable, we request that the Air Force limit the timeframe for previous work experience to the last 5 years. | Section L, page 11 | |||
| Section 4.5 | Assuming request is duplicated here to ask in regards to Northeast. Comply as appropriate per the requirement and time period available. Yes, applicable information received by the AF is available on the administrative record for these sites. | ||||
| 15 | Task Order (2) Pricing Model | The non-severable CLINS have sites at Loring and Plattsburgh with a performance objective of Site Closeout or Response Complete. By what date is SC or RC to be achieved for each site? | Task Order 2 | The projected RC or SC dates for the Plattsburgh and Loring sites are identified on the TO 2 site list (TO 2 PWS Attch 1 Northeast Base Site list). These sites are anticipated to achieve their respective performance objectives within the PoP of the BECOS contract. The AF does not specify a date by which the objectives should be completed within the PoP. | |
| 16 | PWS | The overall BECOS, the Task Order (2), and the installation specific PWSs do not address handling of Investigative-Derived Waste (IDW) (e.g., purge water) at sites known to be impacted by PFAS. Please confirm that there are no special handing and disposal requirements for IDW at these sites. If special handing and disposal are required, please confirm (1) the sites that are impacted; (2) whether segregation and testing for PFAS are the only requirements; (3) whether offerors should assume that all IDW at PFAS sites is to be handled in accordance with Air Force guidance. | PWS | The PWSs refers to following AF guidance on disposal of waste. AF guidance on the disposal of IDW impacted by PFAS is provided in the Google Drive site. The TO 2 site list identifies sites that been impacted by PFAS. | |
| 17 | PWS - Griffiss - Site SD052-02 | The groundwater pump and treat (P&T) system was shut down for an In-situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) pilot study. The study showed that the ISCO injection was ineffective. The final 2018 Annual report mentions the shutdown of the P&T system and states that costly refurbishing is not recommended. The performance objective for this site is RA-O. Please identify the RA-O requirements of this site. |
If RA-O is to operate the P&T system, please confirm the system will be operating and functional and will not have to be refurbished by the BECOS contractor.
If RA-O is Montitored Natural Attenuation (MNA), please provide the requirements of the MNA program. PWS - Griffiss - Site SD052-02 The TO 2 site list (TO 2 PWS Attch 1 Northeast Base Site list) identifies the following as the current remedy: GW monitoring, maintain system on standby in operable condition & maintain permit, system decommissioning, LUC/IC monitoring and Five-Year Review.
Currently the system is not operational. System testing, restart and refurbishment is not included as part of TO 2.
The RA-O for this site is as identified in the 2018 annual report.
18 PWS - Griffiss - Site SD054 The final 2018 Groundwater report recommendations included biosparge system maintenance and optimization and potential system shut down. The performance objective for this site is RA-O. Please identify the RA-O requirements of this site.
If RA-O is to operate/maintain/optimize the biosparge system, please confirm the system will be operating and functional and will not have to be refurbished by the BECOS contractor.
| If RA-O is MNA, please provide the requirements of the MNA program. | PWS - Griffiss - Site SD054 | The system has not been operated since late 2018 and has not been restarted. The operational information including operational parameters and issues for this site, during the last year it was operated, were presented in the Final 2018 Supplemental Investigation and Groundwater Monitoring at Sites SS054 and SS067, Former Griffiss Air Force Base, Rome, New York, Oct 2019 (AR 592355). The RA-O for this site is as identified in the October 2019 report. | |||
| 19 | PWS - Griffiss - Site SS017 | The final supplemental site investigation report for the site, dated Jan 2020, recommended the removal of non-residential use deed restriction/ unrestricted use. In addition, the Site List indicates that SC is pending. However, the Task Order (2) pricing model includes LTM at SS017 in each option year of the contract. Please confirm offerors should continue to price LTM at SS017 in the Task Order (2) Pricing Model. | PWS - Griffiss - Site SS017 | The regulators have concurred with supplemental site investigation report for SS017 and SS025, which recommends removal or close out of the remaining institutional controls for each respective site. Remedial requirements for the sites need to continue until site closure documents memorializing completion of all remedial requirements and closing out the site are completed. |
| 20 | PWS - Griffiss - Site SS025 | The Site List indicates that SC is pending at SS025. However, the Task Order (2) pricing model includes SS025 in each option year of the contract. Please confirm offerors should continue to price LTM at SS025 in the Task Order (2) Pricing Model. | PWS - Griffiss - Site SS025 | The regulators have concurred with supplemental site investigation report for SS017 and SS025, which recommends removal or close out of the remaining institutional controls for each respective site. Remedial requirements for the sites need to continue until site closure documents memorializing completion of all remedial requirements and closing out the site are completed. |
| 21 | PWS - Griffiss Site SS067 | The supplemental investigation for SS067 recommended "Cease operation of the skimming system based upon the lack of recoverable free product and the sparge lines based upon the grab groundwater results supporting that the SS067 plume is not present downgradient of the free product area." The performance objective for SS067 is RA-O and RA-O is included in each option year of the Task Order (2) Pricing Model. |
Please confirm offerors should continue to include operation of the skimming system in the RA-O activities.
| If the skimming system will not be operated under the BECOS, please confirm if offerors should include system decommissioning in their pricing for this sites. | PWS - Griffiss Site SS067 | The free product recovery system remains off; however, product gauging and manual product recovery is required. The biosparge system is turned off and on standby, and requires annual inspections. System decommissioning is not included as part of TO 2. | |||
| 22 | Task Order (2) Pricing Model - Base Year | There are a number of CLINs in the Base Year that provide a performance objective of LTM (or RAO) for multiple sites. Then there is a "footnote" within the CLIN that states that all the sites are not priced in the Base Yr (i.e., CLIN 0007, CLIN 0008, CLIN 0053, and CLIN 0054). Since the footnotes say that all the sites listed for these CLINs are not priced in the Base Year, please confirm the CLIN values for these CLINs should = $0. | Task Order (2) Pricing Model - Base Year | Confirmed, CLINs not priced in the base year and a $0 input is sufficient. |
For example, offerors will enter $0 for "CLIN 0007, CLIN 0008, CLIN 0053, and CLIN 0054"
| 23 | General | Would the Air Force consider an extension to the requested dates for Volumes I and II and the due date for Volume III given the shutdowns and remote working situation of many businesses and potentially the Air Force in response to COVID-19? The availability/ability of the Air Force personnel to upload documents to the Administrative Record or other DoD respository and to complete and return PPQs may become an issue. In addition, as more businesses request/require workers to telework, a company's IT infrastructure and, in some cases, the internet itself may not be able to support the increased workload. | General | Extended see beta.sam.gov posting. |
| 24 | GFI and AR | The Admin Record website has been unavailable, crashes everytime we try to download a document, does not allow document download, or the downloaded documents are blank pages. We know that there was maintenance being performed on the Admin Record website, but it also makes it difficult to review background document to develop pricing or to determine if we need to request more recent documents. We request that the Air Force either extend the due date for questions or allow potential offerors to request documents after the deadline for questions. | GFI and AR | At the time responses to questions are posted, please request additional consideration if your questions were not addressed herein. |
| 25 | GFI - Plattsburgh | Please provide the 2019 Five Year Review. | Google site/AR | The Final 2019 Five-Year Review for Plattsburgh is loaded on the admin record site and is accessible as AR 595588. For ease of reference, this document has also been posted to the Google site. |
| 26 | GFI | The latest documents made available to offerors at a number of installations are from 2018. Please provide the 2019 versions of annual LTM and RA-O reports. | GFI | The most recent reports available have been posted to the AR and should be used appropriately as references. |
| 27 | Task Order (2) PWS - Pease - Site TU032 | Attachment 1 refers to performance monitoring of new In-Situ Enhance Bioremediation (ISEB) injections. The performance objective for TU032 is RA-O. Please provide documentation of the performance monitoring requirements. | Task Order (2) PWS - Pease - Site TU032 | The performance monitoring samples will be collected from four well locations (32-5229, 32-5598, 32-5780, and 32-6777) and are to be collected semiannually for 2 years starting in spring 2020. This task order will be responsible for the Fall 2020, Spring/Fall 2021 rounds. The analytical parameters for the performance monitoring samples will be for VOCs by EPA Method SW-846 8260C, natural attenuation parameters (ferrous iron, ferric iron, nitrate, alkalinity, sulfate, and chloride), TOC by Method 9060A and Groundwater quality parameters (temperature, pH, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxidation-reduction potential, and turbidity) |
| 28 | Task Order (2) PWS | Please confirm the incumbent contractors be required to finish deliverables associated with their 2020 LTM/RA-O activities through regulator approval. | Task Order (2) PWS | Incumbent contractors will provide final validated data packages as the final deliverable for 2020 LTM/RA-O activities. Performance of all required LTM/RA-O reports through regulatory approval is required under this task order. |
| 29 | Task Order (2) PWS - PeaseB33:C34B33:C33B33:C35C33B33:C35B33:C36B33:C35B33:C36 | The PWS states that baseline sampling should be performed for each identified site in accordance with plans in place prior to 2015. At Pease Site 49, the 2010 Long-Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) is the last plan provided in GFI. Subsequent Annual reports (e.g. the 2014 annual report listed as a Key Document) document sampling at a lower frequency than the 2010 LTMP. Please confirm offerors are to conduct monitoring in accordance with the 2010 LTMP. | TO 2 | There is a regulatory disagreement on past reductions in LTMP sampling. Sampling in accordance with the last approved LTMP is expected to be performed under this Task Order unless/until regulatory agreement for reductions is properly attained. |
| 30 | Task Order (2) Pricing Model and Solicitation Section F (page 9) | The PoP in Section F is stated as 30 July 2020 to 30 July 2030. Please confirm summer sampling events in FY30 are not included in the Task Order (2) PWS or the Task Order (2) Pricing Model. | TO 2 | All routine sampling that can be accomplished to provide validated analytical results within the POP should be priced. |
| 31 | Task Order (2) PWS - Pease | Site 16 at Pease is listed as a CERCLA site in the Attachment 1 Site List but the 5-yr review indicates that it is non-CERCLA. Please confirm the regulatory regime and the requirement. | TO 2 | Site 16 is Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) site. It is non-CERCLA, but due to nature of contaminants, EPA is the lead regulator. |
| 32 | Task Order (2) PWS - Pease, Pg 2 | The PWS states that baseline sampling in accordance with plans in place prior to 2015, should be conducted for each identified site. Some of those plans contain semiannual, quarterly, or monthly sampling requirement. Please confirm the baseline sampling requirement is a single round of the most comprehensive set of wells in the plan. | TO 2 | There is a regulatory disagreement on past reductions in LTMP sampling. Sampling in accordance with the last approved LTMP is expected to be performed under this Task Order unless/until regulatory agreement for reductions is properly attained. The only exception is Site 13 which has regulatory agreement to perform sampling as documented in annual reports. |
| 33 | Task Order (2) PWS - Pease, Pg 2 | Excluding PFAS, please confirm the incumbent PBR contractor will be responsible for establishing new Goundwater Monitoring Zone (GMZ) boundaries for sites where existing GMZs have been breached (e.g. Mn at Site 13). | TO 2 | No new groundwater management zones will be established under the existing PBR contract or the base award. Any future changes to GMZs will be contemplated in follow-on task orders |
| 34 | Task Order (2) PWS - Plattsburgh - Section 3.1.5, Five-Year Review, page 6 | Please confirm the dates of the next Five-Year Reviews (FYR). As stated on page 1 of the PWS, the last FYR was in 2019. The next FYRs would therefore be initiated in 2024 and 2029 not 2021 and 2026 as stated in this section. | TO 2 | The date of the next five year review is as specified on pg 6 of 6 in TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Platts Base Spec Req Northeast BECOS vf2. Specifically, "Preparation of the statutory Five-Year Review by September 2022 (to be initiated in 2021 with draft submitted by May 2022)." |
The Plattsburgh five year reviews need to be completed by September 2022 and September 2027.
| 35 | Solicitation | 1. | Proposal Submission Deadline: Please clarify if 3/30/2020 is a no later than due date for Volumes I and II. The first sentence says Volumes I and II are requested to be submitted by 3/30/2020, while the 2nd and 3rd sentences (Volume III and All Items clause, respectively) state the due dates are no later than 4/29/2020. | Solicitation | Proposal due date is 13 May 2020. Refer to extensions on beta.sam.gov. Amendment forthcoming. | |
| 36 | Section L | |||||
| Page 11 | Please confirm that companies do not need to submit a list of every document produced related to past/present work at sites identified as part of this requirement but rather provide identifying information for each project or contract. | Section L | Comply as appropriate within time period available. Past PBR documents are typically posted to the administrative record. | |||
| 37 | ||||||
| 38 | ||||||
| 39 | ||||||
| 40 | ||||||
| 41 | ||||||
| 42 | ||||||
| 43 | ||||||
| 44 | ||||||
| 45 | ||||||
| 46 | ||||||
| 47 | ||||||
| 48 | ||||||
| 49 | ||||||
| 50 | ||||||
| 51 | ||||||
| 52 | ||||||
| 53 | ||||||
| 54 | ||||||
| 55 | ||||||
| 56 | ||||||
| 57 | ||||||
| 58 | ||||||
| 59 | ||||||
| 60 | ||||||
| 61 | ||||||
| 62 | ||||||
| 63 | ||||||
| 64 | ||||||
| 65 | ||||||
| 66 | ||||||
| 67 | ||||||
| 68 | ||||||
| 69 | ||||||
| 70 | ||||||
| 71 | ||||||
| 72 | ||||||
| 73 | ||||||
| 74 | ||||||
| 75 | ||||||
| 76 | ||||||
| 77 | ||||||
| 78 | ||||||
| 79 | ||||||
| 80 | ||||||
| 81 | ||||||
| 82 | ||||||
| 83 | ||||||
| 84 | ||||||
| 85 | ||||||
| 86 | ||||||
| 87 | ||||||
| 88 | ||||||
| 89 | ||||||
| 90 | ||||||
| 91 | ||||||
| 92 | ||||||
| 93 | ||||||
| 94 | ||||||
| 95 | ||||||
| 96 | ||||||
| 97 | ||||||
| 98 | ||||||
| 99 | ||||||
| 100 | ||||||
| 101 | ||||||
| 102 | ||||||
| 103 | ||||||
| 104 | ||||||
| 105 | ||||||
| 106 | ||||||
| 107 | ||||||
| 108 | ||||||
| 109 | ||||||
| 110 | ||||||
| 111 | ||||||
| 112 | ||||||
| 113 |
FA8903-20-R-0014
NorCal Region Questions and Answers &P
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .