05222020_v2_FA890320R0012_BECOS_Southwest_Questions and Answers set 1 of 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 56 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8903-20-R-0013
About this file
This document provides questions and answers related to the FA8903-20-R-0013 Southwest Region Request for Proposals for Base Realignment and Closure Environmental Construction and Optimization Services. Key details include that the solicitation is for environmental remediation and monitoring services at multiple military bases in the Southwest region, including George Air Force Base, March Air Force Base, Norton Air Force Base, and Williams Air Force Base. The services required include ongoing operations and maintenance of treatment systems, landfill monitoring and maintenance, groundwater monitoring, and five-year reviews. The response date for proposals was extended to June 8, 2020. The contract is anticipated to commence on July 31, 2020. Pricing is to be provided using the bid schedules and models included with the solicitation.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 52 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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 | DATE RCVD | Document Reference | GOV'T RESPONSE | RESPONSE DATE |
| 1 | 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. | 27-Apr-20 | 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. | 5/20/20 |
| 2 | Section L Proposal Submittal Instructions page 7 and page 8 | 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 | 27-Apr-20 | 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. | 5/20/20 |
| 3 | 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. | 27-Apr-20 | 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. | 5/20/20 |
| 4 | 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. | 27-Apr-20 | SF33 | Refer to the SF33 Sections H and I for required information. | 5/20/20 |
| 5 | 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? | 27-Apr-20 | SF33 Amendment | 52.204-8 to be added to SF33 for contractor fill-in. Amendment forthcoming. | 5/20/20 |
| 6 | 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. | 27-Apr-20 | 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. | 5/20/20 | ||||||
| 7 | 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. | 27-Apr-20 | 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. | 5/20/20 | |
| 8 | 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. | 27-Apr-20 | 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. | 5/20/20 | ||||||
| 9 | Task Order (2) Pricing Model | The Task Order (2) Pricing Model identifies Non-Severable CLINs for RC and SC at sites at Norton and George. By what date is SC or RC to be achieved for each site? | 27-Apr-20 | Task Order 2 | The projected RC or SC dates for the Norton and George sites are identified on the TO 2 site list (TO 2 PWS Attch 1 Southwest 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. | 5/20/20 | |
| 10 | 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. | 27-Apr-20 | 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. | 5/20/20 | |
| 11 | PWS - Task Order (2) - George | Please supply the 14 August 2019 BCT meeting minutes as referenced in the “Frequency of Monitoring” column for George Site ID CG070 in TO2 PWS Attachment 1 Southwest Site List. It is not available in Administrative Records. | 27-Apr-20 | AR # 597546 | The "Final BCT Meeting Minutes form 14 August 2019 for the Evaluation of Operable Unit 1, Site CG070 Groundwater Monitoring Program" were uploaded to the George "AR". | 5/20/20 | |
| 12 | PWS - Task Order (2) - George | Please supply the 2012 LTMP referenced in the “Frequency of Monitoring” column for George Site ID CG070 in TO2 PWS Attachment 1 Southwest Site List. It is not available in Administrative Records. | 27-Apr-20 | AR #2441 | This document never existed for George's Operable Unit 1, Site CG070. A Technical Memorandum, Compound Specific Isotope Analysis, Site CG070, Operable Unit 1 dated 17 September 2012 is AR # 2441. | 5/20/20 | |
| 13 | TO2 PWS | TO2 PWS Southwest BECOS vf3, Page 5 of 36: 6 Locations are listed, George AFB, March AFB, Norton AFB, Williams AFB, former Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Mesa and former Ontario Air National Guard Station (ANGS). However, there are only location-specific PWSs for George AFB, March AFB, Norton AFB and Williams AFB. Should there be additional PWSs to cover the two additional installations or is the reference in error since they are not included in TO 2 PWS Attch 1 Southwest Site List BECOS vf5? | 27-Apr-20 | AR # 53 | All environmental work and programs at Ontario Air National Guard Station has been completed for almost 20 years. Therefore, no future work is programmed. | 5/20/20 | |
| 14 | PWS - Task Order (2) - George | George OT071: Please provide the Draft Final Corrective Action Plan or the quantities and locations of the pesticide corrective action hot spot removal for estimation purposes. | 27-Apr-20 | NA | The Draft Final Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is not in the George "AR". The Draft Work Plan, Dieldrin (Hot Spot) Determination, Non-CERCLA Site OT071 was issued for regulatory review on 20 April 2020. | 5/20/20 | |
| 15 | PWS - Task Order (2) - March | The Site List states that five new sites were discovered at FT007. Since the Performance Objective for this site is RA-O, please confirm investigation of the new sources is not within the scope of Task Order (2). | 27-Apr-20 | 1) Focused Investigation Report, dated 4 Mar 2020 (AR#597463, 597463.1) |
2) Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, dated August 2019 (AR#595934)
3) Final Interim RODA (IRODA) for Site FT007, dated 20 June 2017 (AR#562439) tc={C4F0CE3C-DF04-4A3E-BB4E-8A3B8FB93FDC}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
| Ref. 1 and 2 were issued post- RFP and may not be in the Google Drive | The investigation of the new sources is NOT within the scope of TO-2. Clarification: There are five potential new source areas (i.e., former burn pits), NOT FIVE NEW SITES, that were identified and recently investigated. There is no specific requirement within the scope of TO-2 other than effectively implementing the remedy per the IRODA. Any future requirement, including additional investigation of the five former burn pits, if necessary, may be addressed through a separate task order. | 5/20/20 | |||||
| 16 | PWS - Task Order (2) - Norton | The site List states a ROD amendment is being prepared by the current contractor for DP024/SA017. Please provide the draft PP or ROD or information on how the remedy will change. | 27-Apr-20 | PWS TO 2 | No draft Porposed Plan or ROD Amendment is available at this time. Internal AF discussions regarding remedy change are still ongoing. Regulators have recommended implementation of institutional controls to prohibit residential uses and preparation of a ROD Amendment specifying execution of a land use covenant with additional soil management and annual monitoring requirements. | 5/20/20 | |
| 17 | Task Order (2) Pricing Model and PWS - Williams | The current remedy at Williams FT002 is a Five-Year Review only. PFAS was found at the site. Please confirm remediation will not be required as part of Task Order (2). | 27-Apr-20 | TO2 | PFAS investigation and remediation is not within the scope of Task Order (2) | 5/20/20 | |
| 18 | Task Order (2) PWS and Pricing Model - George | George includes maintenance of ingress/egress on 14 private properties. Please confirm the costs for this maintenance is included in CLIN008. | 27-Apr-20 | TO2 | The 14 well easements for Site CG070 are currently under notification by the Air Force with the private property owners to start easement discussions. Therefore, no negotiations have been accomplished this far. | 5/20/20 | |
| 19 | Item 2.4 of Section L | Please confirm that the submission is indeed May 25, Memorial Day and a national holiday. | 27-Apr-20 | Solicitation Due Date | Proposal deadline extended to 08 June 2020. All items required by 08 June 2020. | 5/20/20 | |
| 20 | Attachment 1 - Base Site List; Former March Air Force Base | Is Site 7 to be operated in accordance with the Interim Record of Decision Amendment (IRODA) document dated June 2017? If so, do we also assume O&M of the extraction wells at the five new source areas identified at the site in the IRODA? | 27-Apr-20 | 1) Final Interim RODA for Site FT007, dated 20 June 2017 (AR#562439) |
2) Site FT007 Annual Process Monitoring Report, dated 30 April 2020 (AR#587069)
| 3) SVE System Rebound Sampling Report for Site 7, dated 19 Feb 2019 (AR#584250) | Yes, the currently existing Site 7 remedy must be effectively implemented in accordance with the IRODA, dated June 2017. O&M of additional extraction wells at the new source areas is part of future SVE system expansion which may be addressed as a requirement in a separate task order. | 5/20/20 | |||||
| 21 | Attachment 1 - Base Site List; Former March Air Force Base | Is the expansion of the Site 7 SVE system as identified in the IRODA part of this SW Region BECOS proposal? | 27-Apr-20 | TO2 | No, the expansion of the Site 7 SVE system may be addressed as a requirement in a separate task order. There is no specific Site 7 requirement within the scope of TO-2 other than effectively implementing the existing remedy per the IRODA. | 5/20/20 | |
| 22 | Attachment 1 - Base Site List OT070; Former George Air Force Base | Attachment 1 states, “As per the 14 August 2019 BCT Meeting Minutes, some monitoring wells are sampled annually, some biannually and the remainder are every five-years.” These meeting minutes do not seem to be on the AR or the Google Drive site. Will the referenced minutes be made available? Is there another document that summarizes the current number of wells sampled and sampling frequency? | 27-Apr-20 | AR # 597546 | The "Final BCT Meeting Minutes form 14 August 2019 for the Evaluation of Operable Unit 1, Site CG070 Groundwater Monitoring Program" were uploaded to the George "AR". | 5/20/20 | |
| 23 | Attachment 1 - Base Site List OT069; Former George Air Force Base | Attachment 1 states that the current well monitoring frequency is “Annually as per the 2012 LTMP.” However, the Site OT069 Revised Long-Term Monitoring Plan Memorandum (Appendix I of the 2012 Basewide Annual Monitoring and Operations Report for CERCLA and Non-CERCLA Sites AR2514) states that there are 11 wells sampled annually and 10 sampled every 5 years. Please clarify the sampling frequency for the OT069 wells. | 27-Apr-20 | AR # 2490 and 2490.1 | Annual Frequency: In the Revised Final 2012 Basewide Annual Monitoring Report, Appendix I (AR # 2490 and 2490.1), eleven monitoring well are proposed to be sampled annually. Five-Year Review Frequency: In the Revised Final 2012 Basewide Annual Monitoring Report, Appendix I (AR # 2490 and 2490.1), ten monitoring wells are proposed to be sampled every five years to support the Five-year Review. | 5/20/20 | |
| 24 | Attachment 1 - Base Site List; Multiple Sites; Former George Air Force Base | Was sampling performed at DP003, DP004, and LF007 in 2019; LF014 and LF044 performed in 2020 (2018 AMO Report)? | 27-Apr-20 | NA | The Draft Technical Memorandum - Spring 2020 Basewide Groundwater Sampling confirms the question is correct. | 5/20/20 | |
| 25 | LF014 - Former George Air Force Base | LF014 – 2018 Annual Monitoring and Operations Report states once three rounds of additional data are obtained (ending with Spring 2019), an evaluation similar to that performed for Site LF012 in 2016 under Amendment 04 (CB&I, 2016c) will be performed for Site LF014. This evaluation resulted in changing the sampling frequency every 5 years. Has this evaluation been completed, or the process started? | 27-Apr-20 | NA | To date, this Operable Unit 3, Site LF014 evaluation memorandum has not been prepared. | 5/20/20 | |
| 26 | Former George Air Force Base | Were the hydroseeding at Sites LF004, LF014, or LF007 successful? Are additional events recommended at LF014 or any of the other landfill sites. If yes, is that part of this proposal? | 27-Apr-20 | TO2 | Yes, the hydroseeding was successful at all five capped landfills (Sites DP003, DP004, LF007, LF012, and LF014). No, further hydroseeding is needed at any of the five capped landfills (Site DP003, DP004, LF007, LF012 and LF014). | 5/20/20 | |
| 27 | Section 1.1 of Norton Specific Scope, bottom Page 1 | The Norton Specific scope states the (BECOS) Contractor is responsible for well decommissioning as listed on Table 2-2 of the "Basewide Groundwater Monitoring 2017 Annual Report". Please confirm the document AFCEC AR Number as the document with a title that is most similar and available in the AR is titled "Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring 2017 Annual Report" to ensure we are reviewing the correct Table 2-2. | 27-Apr-20 | 2017 Report | Reference to the 2017 Annual Report and Table 2-2 is an error. For a list of wells to be decommissioned see attached excel spreadsheet "Norton Well Decommissioning List_30 Apr 2020". Assume wells are to be decommissioned in FY21. | 5/20/20 | |
| 28 | Section 1.1 of Norton Specific Scope, bottom Page 1 | Please clarify which Norton wells will require decommissioning under BECOS as the Excel file Attachment 1_Site List_Vf5, on the line associated with CG097, states that the PBR contractor will write the RACR and decommission the wells associated with CG097. None of the other Norton sites listed in that file call for well decommissioning. | 27-Apr-20 | 2017 Report | Site CG097 and Site SA017 require well decommissiong. For a list of wells to be decommissioned see attached excel spreadsheet "Norton Well Decommissioning List_30 Apr 2020". Assume wells are to be decommissioned in FY21. | 5/20/20 | |
| 29 | Attachment 1_Site List_Vf5, Norton | Attachment 1_Site List_Vf5 also states that for Norton sites SA017 and DP024 the PBR Contractor will prepare the draft ROD amendment but that finalization of the ROD amendment will be part of this TO. Please make the draft ROD amendment available for review if possible. | 27-Apr-20 | NA | No draft Porposed Plan or ROD Amendment is available at this time. Internal AF discussions regarding remedy change are still ongoing. Regulators have recommended implementation of institutional controls to prohibit residential uses and preparation of a ROD Amendment specifying execution of a land use covenant with additional soil management and annual monitoring requirements. | 5/20/20 | |
| 30 | Section L, 2.4 | Are proposals to be submitted by EMAIL ONLY to the contracting officer? Please confirm. | 27-Apr-20 | 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. | 5/20/20 | |
| 31 | Section L, 3.3.1 | What is required information that Offerer must include in narrative for past performance information (PPI)? Will the government provide a preferred format or form? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L, 3.3.3 | Please refere to par 3.3.3. about specific content. The required Past Performance Questionnaire is included in Section J attachments. | 5/20/20 | |
| 32 | Section L, 3.4 | Please confirm that Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ’s) are to be submitted to the government no later than 25 May 2020 at 1300 San Antonio, TX local time. | 27-Apr-20 | Solicitation Due Date | Proposal deadline extended to 08 June 2020. All items required by 08 June 2020. | 5/20/20 | |
| 33 | Section I | 52.230-2 Cost Accounting Standards and 52.230-6 Administration of Cost Accounting Standards are not applicable to Small Businesses/Small Business Set Asides. Will the Government delete these clauses? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L, 4.9.1 | Requirement to be removed. Amendment to the solicitation is forthcoming. An adequate accounting system is required when cost type CLINs are contemplated or awarded. This requirement applies to prime contractors only, regardless of business size. FAR 16.301-3(a). | 5/20/20 | |
| 34 | Section I | The work will be performed in the Southwest region of the United States. If work will not be performed outside the United States, will the Government delete the following clauses: |
1) 52.222-29 Notification of Visa Denial,
2) 52.225-14 Inconsistency between English Version and Translation of Contract,
3) 52.228-3 Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act),
4) 52.228-4 Workers’ Compensation and War-Hazard Insurance Overseas
| 5) 52.229-6 Taxes-Foreign Fixed-Price Contracts | 27-Apr-20 | Section I | Removed. See amendment documents. | 5/20/20 | |||
| 35 | Section I | Does the Government contemplate paying for services via a Third Party | 27-Apr-20 | Section I, 52.232-36 | Not at this time, but this is a standard clause often included should the need arise. | 5/20/20 | |
| 36 | Section I | 52.230-2 and 52.230-6 are not applicable to Small Businesses/Small Business Set Asides. Will the Government delete the following Business Systems clauses which are not applicable since this contract is not CAS covered? |
1) 252.215-7002, Cost Estimating System Requirements
2) 252.242-7004, Material Management and Accounting Systems
3) 252.242-7006, Accounting System Administration
4) 252.244-7001, Contractor Purchasing System Administration.
| 5) 252.245-7003, Contractor Property Management System Administration. | 27-Apr-20 | Section I | Removed. See amendment documents. | 5/20/20 |
| 37 | Section L | The RFP indicates that work will be performed in the Southwest region of the United States. If work will not be performed outside the United States, will the Government delete the following clauses: |
1) 52.214-34 Submission of Offers in the English Language
| 2) 52.214-35 Submission of Offers in U.S. Currency | 27-Apr-20 | Section I | Removed. See amendment documents. | 5/20/20 | |||
| 38 | IDIQ PWS | 2.2 PMP - What timeframe should offerors assume for the AF’s review of the initial version of the PMP? | 27-Apr-20 | PWS 2.2 | Project Management Plan (PMP) and Milestone Payment Schedule (MPS) will be developed after award of TO 2. There will be a regional PMP with annexes for each TO as described in PWS Section 2.2. | 5/20/20 | |
| 39 | IDIQ PWS | 2.2 PMP - What timeframe should offerors assume for the AF’s review of subsequent revisions to the PMP after the initial version is approved? | 27-Apr-20 | PWS 2.2 | Project Management Plan (PMP) and Milestone Payment Schedule (MPS) will be developed after award of TO 2. There will be a regional PMP with annexes for each TO as described in PWS Section 2.2. | 5/20/20 | |
| 40 | TO 2 | What overtime law governs the work performed at George AFB, March AFB, Norton AFB, and Ontario Air National Guard Station? Is the overtime work subject to CA labor law or Federal? | 27-Apr-20 | General | Under federal law, employers must pay nonexempt workers time and a half for all hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek. But, differences in state laws make overtime compliance more complicated. Some states have more-stringent overtime requirements than the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)—yet other states have less stringent laws or no specific requirements at all. Employers should keep in mind that the most employee-friendly rules apply. In this case, California has more stringent overtime rules. | 5/20/20 | |
| 41 | TO 2 PWS | Section 3 - What timeframe should offerors assume for the AF’s review of the Working, Draft, and Draft Final Technical Plan and Report submittals? | 27-Apr-20 | TO 2 PWS | Typical review timelines are 30 days depending on the quality of submissions. | 5/20/20 | |
| 42 | TO 2 PWS | Section 3 - What timeframe should offerors assume for Regulatory Agency review of Draft and Draft Final Plan and Report submittals? | 27-Apr-20 | Federal Facility Agreement (FFA), dated Sep 1990 (AR#53) | Review/Commenting period for primary and secondary documents must comply with, and may be found, in the FFA | 5/20/20 | |
| 43 | Section B | Work will take place in the United States. Will the Government delete DFAR 252.229-7001 Tax Relief 2014-09 which applies to an award made to a foreign concern for work performed in a foreign country? | 27-Apr-20 | Section I, 252.229-7001 | Removed. See amendment documents. | 5/20/20 | |
| 44 | Section H | What information is required to be completed in Section H of the Model Contract? | 27-Apr-20 | SF33 | Refer to the SF33 Sections H and I for required information. | 5/20/20 | |
| 45 | Section I | What information is required to be completed in Section I of the Model Contract? | 27-Apr-20 | SF33 | Refer to the SF33 Sections H and I for required information. | 5/20/20 | |
| 46 | Section K | Are Offerors required to submit a Proposal Adequacy Checklist (252.215-7009)? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L 5.2 d | Adequate price competition is anticipated; and therefore, at this time, Offerors are not required to submit a Proposal Adequacy Checklist IAW DFARS 252.215-7009. | 5/20/20 | |
| 47 | Task Oder 1 | Will the Government provide a Task Order price proposal form in Excel for Task Order 1? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L, 5.1 | Confirmed, offerors do not need to submit pricing for Task Order 1. The not to exceed (NTE) amont for TO1 Southwest is $19,000.00. | 5/20/20 | |
| 48 | Section L | 5.6.2 Compensation Plan Model - Can Offeror submit one Compensation Plan and Compensation Model for the Joint Venture if submitting one FBLR on behalf of the JV? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L 5.6 | Each team member submitting FBLRs shall submit a separate Compensation Plan Narrative and Excel Model. |
| If the Joint Venture is submitting one FBLR on behalf of the JV then only one Compensation Plan Narrative and Excel Model is required. | 5/20/20 | |||||
| 49 | Compensation Plan Model | The Excel form includes a column for "base hourly salary" and "fringe." Please clarify what should be included (i.e. overhead and G&A) in the "base hourly salary". | 27-Apr-20 | Section L 5.6.2 | Proposed Base Hourly Salary shall NOT include overhead and G&A. Base Hourly Salary is the base amount paid to the professional employee. Offerors shall provided salary support data (surveys and/or studies from professional, public, and private organizations (e.g., Watson & Wyatt, Economic Research Institute, Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.) used to support the proposed base hourly salaries. Identify the source of the provided surveys and studies (salary support data). |
| Base Hourly Salary and Fringe Rates are "not" the entire labor burden but only two (2) elements of fully burdened labor. Fringe rates shall be in accordance with Offerors accounting system. | 5/20/20 | ||||||
| 50 | IDIQ PWS | Section 3.3.1- Quality Assurance. The PWS indicates that data validation is to be performed in accordance with the DOD General Data Validation Guidelines and available Modules. By what guidance is data validation to be performed if there is no available Module for the method to be validated? | 27-Apr-20 | IDIQ PWS | Accepted environmental restoration practices and standards. | 5/20/20 | |
| 51 | Section L v6 | 5.6.2 h, page 20 - Can contractors actual rates of employees be used as source instead of the publications listed? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L 5.6.2.h | If actual rates of employees are used as the base hourly salaries proposed in the Compensation Plan Model support for the actual rates must be pervided (i.e. payroll, accounting actuals etc.). The support documents must be broken out in sufficient detail to identify the base hourly salaries. Fully burdened rates are NOT acceptable as the Government cannot determine the base hourly rates. | 5/20/20 | |
| 52 | TO2 PWS | Page 14 of 36 - Which sites require renewal payments for easements or leases and how much are they? | 27-Apr-20 | TO2 | George: There is no specific requirement within the scope of TO-2 for renewal payments for easements or leases. The following information is historical information and is subject to change. For Norton AFB, regarding the Groundwater Monitoring wells, there are permit fees every five-years (~$4,913) and annual inspection fees (~$3,922). For LF-2, there is an annual permit fee (~$6,544). | 5/20/20 | |
| 53 | TO2 PWS | Page 23 of 36 - Which systems will require repair before operation of this contract? | 27-Apr-20 | TO2 PWS | None identified at Williams, March, Norton. | 5/20/20 | |
| 54 | TO2 PWS | Page 26 of 36, 5.4 - How much drinking water should be supplied per residence or business? | 27-Apr-20 | TO2 PWS | None identified at Williams, March. | 5/20/20 | |
| 55 | TO2 PWS | Page 26 of 36, 5.4 - How many locations will need drinking water? | 27-Apr-20 | TO2 PWS | None identified at Williams, March. | 5/20/20 | |
| 56 | General | Are there any sites that government pays for utiitities for contractor Treatment systems or contractor needs? | 27-Apr-20 | General | None identified at Williams, Norton. For March AFB, none. All utilities are paid for by the contractor as required for activities associated with the PBR contract. | 5/20/20 | |
| 57 | General | Are there available utility bills for the last 1 year period for any systems that require electrical power? | 27-Apr-20 | General | Not for Williams, however a cost summary spreadsheet is included on the Google docs site for Williams. For March AFB, yes. Copies of current contractor's last year's utility bills may be requested thru the AF Contracting Officer. For Norton: lectrical usage info for Norton AFB from Southern California Edison: |
Month Usage (kWh) Charges Oct-19 1342 $184.23 Sep-19 1087 $174.37 Aug-19 1143 $184.66 Jul-19 1222 $192.47 Jun-19 1208 $151.07 May-19 1202 $150.60 Apr-19 651 $104.81 Mar-19 226 $61.90 Feb-19 225 $61.72 Jan-19 240 $67.53 Dec-18 1016 $182.83
| Nov-18 1238 $216.54 | 5/20/20 | ||||||
| 58 | FA8903-20-R-0013, southwest region 12/5/2019 | 2.6.2, Page 12 of 41 - Will government supply a meeting facility for any of the bases for community meetings? | 27-Apr-20 | FA8903-20-R-0013, southwest region 12/5/2019 | No government supplied meeting facility for Williams, Norton. For March AFB community meetings are not applicable. Semiannual RAB meetings are coordinated with and facilitated by the March ARB. | 5/20/20 | |
| 59 | General | Please confirm the only pricing required is completion of the pricing bid schedules provided with the solicitation. | 27-Apr-20 | Section L, 5.2 and 5.2b | Confirmed. The only pricing required is the completion of the bid schedules IAW Section L: Task Order 2 Model, FFP FBLR Table and Compensation Plan Model. | 5/20/20 | |
| 60 | TO 2 | Groundwater monitoring was scheduled for Spring 2019 at George AFB landfill sites DP003, DP004, LF007, and LF014. The latest groundwater sampling results are from the 2018 Basewide Annual Report. Can the government provide the latest groundwater sampling data? | 27-Apr-20 | AR #s 555485, 555485.1, and 590472 through 590472.4 | Operable Unit 3, landfill Sites DP003, DP004 and LF007 were last sampled in Spring 2019, and this 2019 Basewide Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) is expected to be issued final in June 2020 and will go into the AR. Landfill Site LF012 was last sampled in Spring 2016. The Final 2016 Basewide AMR is AR # 555485 and 555485.1. The latest and available sampling results for landfill Sites LF014 and LF044 are in the Final 2018 Basewide AMR (AR # 590472 and 590472.4). | 5/20/20 | |
| 61 | Section L, 2.4 | The proposal due date is the Memorial Day Holiday. We respectfully request that the due date be extended 10 calendar days to 6/4/2020. | 27-Apr-20 | Solicitation Due Date | Proposal deadline extended to 08 June 2020. All items required by 08 June 2020. | 5/20/20 | |
| 62 | Section L, 2.2.9 | For “Company locations(s)”, does government want list of main office location or all office locations? What is required data – city and state or full address (street, city, state, zip)? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L, 2.2.9 | Main office locations for those parnters and subcontractors relied upon for the effort proposed with full contact information per 2.2.9. | 5/20/20 | |
| 63 | Section L, 2.2.8 | Since there is no technical approach write-up, we respectfully request that the requirement for a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms listed in Table 2.2.2.1 - Proposal Organization removed. | 27-Apr-20 | Section L 2.2.8 | No, the glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes. It allows the offeror to clarify any terminology found in the volume. | 5/20/20 | |
| 64 | Section L, 2.3 | For tables and graphics, would a font size of no less than 9 points be acceptable? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L 2.3 | No, please comply with Section L, 2.3 "no less than 12 points". | 5/20/20 | |
| 65 | Section L, 2.4 and 2.5 | Are Offerors to submit proposals by both a DoD SAFE link and email to three (3) POCs listed in Section L, 2.5? | 27-Apr-20 | 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. | 5/20/20 | |
| 66 | Section L, 2.4 | From whom shall Offeror request a DoD SAFE link? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L, 2.0 | Submit all questions to all listed POCs. | 5/20/20 | |
| 67 | Section L, 2.5 | Are Offerors to email the proposal to three (3) POCs listed in Section L, 2.5? | 27-Apr-20 | Section l, 2.0 and 2.5 | Yes, in accordance with para. 2.5 proposal shall be submitted to all POCs listed. | 5/20/20 | |
| 68 | Section L, 2.5 | RFP states: “If applicable, be sure to advise the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) for prime and subcontractors that the proposal is “For Official Use Only” and “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2/101 and FAR 3.104”. Please clarify – is this applicable? If yes, what is contact info (name, title, email) for ACO and DCAA? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L | No assigned POC requires notification other than any current DCAA office that the contractor (or teaming partners and subcontractors) has for ongoing audits and rate agreements. | 5/20/20 | |
| 69 | Section L, 4.3; Table 2.2.2.1 Proposal Organization | RFP states: “(b) Proposal Checklist – Please provide checklist with the number of documents and their titles that you or any of your partners are intending for the government to receive in your submission. Our team will utilized this to verify receipt of submissions.” Please confirm, required documents are listed in “Table 2.2.2.1 Proposal Organization”, correct? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L, 2.2.2.1 | Confirmed, these are the required documents. | 5/20/20 | |
| 70 | Section L, 2.2.6; 4.3 | RFP 2.2.6 states: Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents (TOC) to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. RFP section L, 4.3a states: Provide a Master Table of Contents for the entire proposal (all volumes). Please clarify Table of Contents requirement. | 27-Apr-20 | Section L, 2.2.6; 4.3 | The detail is based on the level of each offeror's subparagraph levels within each volume. The basic required documents for each volume are listed in the chart at 2.2.2.1. | 5/20/20 | |
| 71 | Section L, 4.7 | Section L, 4.7 Model Contract - will electronic signatures be acceptable rather than an original wet signature? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L | If necessary, an electronic signature is acceptable. Ensure POC has authority to bind the company. | 5/20/20 | |
| 72 | George AFB - Site CG070 | George AFB - Site CG070: According to the Fall 2018 Technical Memorandum for groundwater sampling, a total of 78 wells were sampled during the fall 2018 event, 41 of these wells being in the lower aquifer. This document suggests that a number of wells were not sampled as part of the LTM well network. Additionally, the 2018 basewide groundwater monitoring report states that upper aquifer wells were not sampling during 2018 as the upper aquifer was undergoing a MAROS study. In conjunction with that, a number of wells were “temporarily suspended” until contract negotiations between the incumbent contractor and the Air Force had been approved. |
| Will bidders be provided with the LTM plan and/or SAP for Site GC070, as it is difficult to estimate the complete well network for a typical year? | 27-Apr-20 | AR # 597546 | Review the Final BCT Meeting Minutes form 14 August 2019 for the Evaluation of Operable Unit 1, Site CG070 Groundwater Monitoring Program dated September 2019. | 5/20/20 |
| 73 | George AFB - Site CG070 | George AFB - Site CG070: The selected remedy from the 1994 ROD (pump and treat) was discontinued in 2003. MNA and monitoring has been in place since this point and a number of wells still exhibit TCE concentrations above the MCL (5 ug/L). The Lahontan RWQCB staff rejected the June 2019 submittal of the Draft Evaluation of OU1 Site CG070 Groundwater Monitoring Program due to various issues with the limitations of MAROS software usage. This document in its entirety is also not provided as part of the administrative record, however the rejection letter referenced is detailed enough to get some idea of the issues. According to this document, interim monitoring objectives (since shutdown of the GETS) have not been agreed upon by the BCT in the interim between the previous remedy and the newly selected remedy. |
| An August 2019 incumbent work plan was discovered for a pilot study (hot spot treatment using Plume Stop among other injection amendments). A ROD amendment discussing the selection of this remedy is still pending so the remedy discussed in the workplan has not been selected to date. Has the injection work discussed in the 2019 incumbent work plan been completed? And if so, what was the regulatory outcome? If the pilot study has been initiated, what are the preliminary findings? | 27-Apr-20 | George AFB - Site CG070 | The Operable Unit 1, Site CG070 Remediation Optimization Study is currently underway. The next study event is for all the injection wells to be groundwater re-developed due to the over injection of Plume Stop (Regenesis™) material, which will be followed up by the first "After Injection" groundwater sampling event. No preliminary findings or recommendations have been prepared by the current contractor. | 5/20/20 |
| 74 | Norton AFB - Site SR027 (Small Arms Range) | Norton AFB - Site SR027 (Small Arms Range): As part of the RAOs in the ROD, a work plan has been developed for excavation of lead impacted soils that still remain at the Site and outside of the LUC boundary. A 2014 investigation by Tetra Tech showed lead concentrations exceeding screening criteria and the incumbent subsequently developed a work plan to address these remaining issues and ultimately achieve unrestricted site closure. |
| Has this work been completed? The work plan being referred to was approved in August 2019 however no follow-on documents regarding this work, if completed, have been uploaded to the administrative record. | 27-Apr-20 | Norton AFB - Site SR027 (Small Arms Range) | Work was completed late 2019 and the Draft Excavation Completion Report was reviewed by regulators. Regulators have requested additional excavation at one small area (S-64) (See AR#597000). Any agreed to follow-on actions will be covered under a separate Task Order after BECOS award. | 5/20/20 |
| 75 | Norton AFB - Site LF002 | Monitoring well network for Landfill Site 2 has been reduced from what was historically 7 wells, due to three dry wells. Two POC wells with one background/upgradient well are all that make up the current network. It appears the last time these were sampled was over a decade ago and waning water levels have dropped below the screen on all three wells. |
| Has there been any correspondence with DTSC with regards to the necessity of replacing these dry wells with deeper screened wells? | 27-Apr-20 | Norton AFB - Site LF002 | No, there has been no discussion with DTSC to replace the dry wells. For proposal purposes, assume replacement of 4 wells every 10 years starting FY22 with deeper screened wells. | 5/20/20 |
| 76 | Norton AFB - AT005 | Norton AFB - AT005: In going through the PWS as well as the background documents, many sites have a current remedy designation of “five year review only”. |
| Are five year review included as part of the scope for this RFP? | 27-Apr-20 | Norton AFB - AT005 | Yes | 5/20/20 | |||
| 77 | Williams AFB - Site CTU043 | Williams AFB - Site CTU043: The RFP lists this site as "Five year review only". No information was found for this site on the Admin Record in order to gauge the level of effort, please provide any applicable documents. | 27-Apr-20 | Williams AFB - Site CTU043 | CTU043, also known as UST 1085-2 (ADEQ tank ID 43 and LUST# 0293.07) has use restrictions in an 1051-square-foot area within the IC footprint of SS016. Both sites are addressed by the DEUR MCR# 2009-0039827 and the 2009 SS016 deed 2009-0162752. It is anticipated that the UST 1085-2 restriction will be removed prior to the 2026 Five Year Review. | 5/20/20 | |
| 78 | Williams AFB - Facility 46 | Williams AFB - Facility 46: The RFP lists this site as "Five year review only". No information was found for this site on the Admin Record in order to gauge the level of effort, please provide any applicable documents. | 27-Apr-20 | Williams AFB - Facility 46 | The Voluntary Environmental Mitigation Use Restriction for Facility 46 is Maricopa County Recorder's Document 1998-0172282; also in airport deed MCR 98-0364178. the facility was a former oil-water separator; the use restriction covers an area of approximately 539 square feet, prehibiting residential use. | 5/20/20 | |
| 79 | Williams AFB - Facilities 1093/1094 | Williams AFB - Facilities 1093/1094: The RFP lists this site as "Five year review only". No information was found for this site on the Admin Record in order to gauge the level of effort, please provide any applicable documents. | 27-Apr-20 | Williams AFB - Facilities 1093/1094 | The Voluntary Environmental Mitigation Use Restriction for Facilites 1093/1094 is Maricopa County Recorder's document 97-0059325, but the legal description is incorrectly that of FT02; the correct area of use restriction defined in Attachment S to airport deed MCR 98-0364178 is approximately 0.85 acres and lies almost entirely within the IC footprint for SS016; the restriction prohibits residential use. | 5/20/20 | |
| 80 | IDIQ Schedule B CLNS | Will all future CLINS that are to be negotiated be cost plus fixed fee or firm fixed price? | 27-Apr-20 | IDIQ Schedule B CLINs | All CLINs are FFP except for CR CLINs available for instances where an emerging requirement is negotiated on a future task order. All TO 2 CLINs are FFP. | 5/20/20 | |
| 81 | IDIQ Schedule B CLNS | What criteria will the government use to decide if a future CLIN is CPFF or FFP? | 27-Apr-20 | IDIQ Schedule B CLINs | Cost reimbursement CLINs will only be required for emergent requirements. The FFP CLINs are listed in the IDIQ. | 5/20/20 | |
| 82 | IDIQ Schedule B CLNS | Please describe the process for negotiating all future CLINS. | 27-Apr-20 | IDIQ Schedule B CLINs | Please refer to the ordering procedures and guidelines in FAR 15 regarding sole source negotiations and pricing. | 5/20/20 | |
| 83 | IDIQ Schedule B CLNS | How will the government handle an unsuccessful negotiation of a future CLIN? | 27-Apr-20 | IDIQ Schedule B CLINs | Please refer to the ordering procedures and guidelines in FAR 15 regarding sole source negotiations and pricing. | 5/20/20 | |
| 84 | George AFB - Site SR-401 and UX400 | George AFB - Site SR-401 and UX400: Please delineate the difference between UX400 and SR-401. Is there an overlap? | 27-Apr-20 | AR # 597380 | Yes, there is an overlap! Site SR401 sites is located within the expanded Site XU400. See the reference document for current map of these two sites. However, any future work at MMRP Site XU400 is NOT a part of the BECOS contract. | 5/20/20 | |
| 85 | George AFB - Site SR-401 and UX400 | George AFB - Site SR-401 and UX400: Both SR-401 and UX400 required additional investigation/supplemental RI – have the additional investigation activities been planned or conducted? Have excavation depth/extents been confirmed? Please provide any additional information. | 27-Apr-20 | Not Available | The initial remedial investigation (RI) field effort was conducted at MMRP Sites XU400 and SR401 Practice Grenade Range East in summer 2017. The Draft Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) Report of these two sites was submitted in 12 June 2019. The finalization of this SSI Report will occur after additional field effort is conducted at Site XU400 this summer. However, any future work at MMRP Site XU400 is NOT a part of the BECOS contract. | 5/20/20 | |
| 86 | George AFB - Site ST-054 | George AFB - Site ST-054 : Have specific COCs been identified and delineated? The impact was noted as petroleum and product in soil, please confirm. | 27-Apr-20 | AR #s 590472 through 590472.4 | Yes, the specific COC for Site ST054 are total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Total Xylenes (BTEX). This site has been extensively investigated. | 5/20/20 | |
| 87 | George AFB - Site ST-054 | George AFB - Site ST-054 : What is the status of the SVE system and mass removal in this area, is the system operational, continuous or intermittent? | |||||
| 27-Apr-20 | AR #s 567864, 590472 through 590472.4 | The Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system at Site ST054 has reached Response Complete (RC) on 30 November 2017 (AR # 567864). The SVE is operating today to further remediate the amount of free-product in the underlying Site SS030 (JP-4 free-product and groundwater plumes). | 5/20/20 | ||||
| 88 | George AFB - Site ST-054 | George AFB - Site ST-054 : Was the PSCAP submitted? Please provide any applicable documents. | 27-Apr-20 | AR # 567013 | Yes, the Draft Petroleum Sites Corrective Action Plan, Non-CERCLA Sites SS030 ST054, ST057 and SS084, was issued on 23 July 2013. However, a more recent document the Final Technical Memorandum Evaluation of Current Site Conditions at Non-CERCLA Sites SS084, ST054 and ST057 was issued on 6 November 2017. | 5/20/20 | |
| 89 | George AFB - Site ST-057 | George AFB - Site ST-057 : Have specific COCs been identified and delineated? The impact was noted as petroleum/jet fuel in soil, please confirm. | 27-Apr-20 | AR #s 590472 through 590472.4 | Yes, the specific COC for Site ST054 are total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Total Xylenes (BTEX). This site has been extensively investigated. | 5/20/20 | |
| 90 | George AFB - Site ST-057 | George AFB - Site ST-057 : What is the status of the SVE system and mass removal in this area, is the system operational, continuous or intermittent? | |||||
| 27-Apr-20 | AR #s 567864, 590472 through 590472.4 | The Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system at Site ST054 has reached Response Complete (RC) on 30 November 2017 (AR # 567864). The SVE is operating today to further remediate the amount of free-product in the underlying Site SS030 (JP-4 free-product and groundwater plumes). | 5/20/20 | ||||
| 91 | George AFB - Site ST-057 | George AFB - Site ST-057 : Was the PSCAP submitted? Please provide any applicable documents. | 27-Apr-20 | AR # 567013 | Yes, the Draft Petroleum Sites Corrective Action Plan, Non-CERCLA Sites SS030 ST054, ST057 and SS084, was issued on 23 July 2013. However, a more recent document the Final Technical Memorandum Evaluation of Current Site Conditions at Non-CERCLA Sites SS084, ST054 and ST057 was issued on 6 November 2017. | 5/20/20 | |
| 92 | George AFB - Site SS-084 | George AFB - Site SS-084: Have specific COCs been identified and delineated? The impact was noted as petroleum in soil, please confirm. | 27-Apr-20 | AR #s 590472 through 590472.4 | Yes, the specific COC for Site ST054 are total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Total Xylenes (BTEX). This site has been extensively investigated. | 5/20/20 | |
| 93 | George AFB - Site SS-084 | George AFB - Site SS-084: What is the status of interim remedial action and SVE treatment/free product removal in this area, is the system operational, continuous or intermittent? | 27-Apr-20 | AR #s 567864, 590472 through 590472.4 | The Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system at Site ST054 has reached Response Complete (RC) on 30 November 2017 (AR # 567864). The SVE is operating today to further remediate the amount of free-product in the underlying Site SS030 (JP-4 free-product and groundwater plumes). | 5/20/20 | |
| 94 | George AFB - Site SS-084 | George AFB - Site SS-084: Was PSCAP submitted? Please provide any applicable documents. | 27-Apr-20 | AR # 567013 | Yes, the Draft Petroleum Sites Corrective Action Plan, Non-CERCLA Sites SS030 ST054, ST057 and SS084, was issued on 23 July 2013. However, a more recent document the Final Technical Memorandum Evaluation of Current Site Conditions at Non-CERCLA Sites SS084, ST054 and ST057 was issued on 6 November 2017. | 5/20/20 | |
| 95 | General | Does the Gov't require submittal of both PPQs and CPARS (if available) for each past project? | 27-Apr-20 | Section L, 3.4 and 3.5 | PPQs are required for each relevant contract citation IAW paragraph 3.3.1. Additionally, offeror's are requested to provide CPARS for each relevant contract citation IAW 3.3.1 if available. | 5/20/20 | |
| 96 | General | Considering questions are due by April 27 and answers would not liekly be provided until mid May, this leaves less than two weeks to obtain competative subcontractor pricing. Would the Gov't consider an extension of the due date for proposals to allow sufficient time to price subcontracts? | 27-Apr-20 | Solicitation Due Date | Proposal deadline extended to 08 June 2020. All items required by 08 June 2020. | 5/20/20 | |
| 97 | General | There does not appear to be any background information provided in the RFP documents for former Air Force Reasearch Labaratory and former Ontario Air National Guard Station. Are these facilities to be included in the SW Region solicitation scope? | 27-Apr-20 | AR # 53 | All environmental work and programs at Ontario Air National Guard Station has been completed for almost 20 years. Therefore, no future work is programmed. | 5/20/20 | |
| 98 | General | Does the Gov't have a planned date when they expect to award this contract? The reason for this question is because some of the sites have PBR scope that is to transition with existing ongoing work performed by others. For pricing purposes the offeror will need to know when to assume work will start. | 27-Apr-20 | General | Currently the base year is anticipated to commence on 31 July 2020 per section F of the solicitation. | 5/20/20 | |
| 99 | General | The PWS lists six former AF facilities under this Southwest Region solicitation; George, March, Norton, Williams, AF Research Lab (AFRL) and Ontario National Guard (ANGS). There does not appear to be any background information for the AFRL and ANGS sites. Can the Gov't either provide this information or inform if these locations will have scope assigned to them under this contract? | 27-Apr-20 | AR # 53 | All environmental work and programs at Ontario Air National Guard Station has been completed for almost 20 years. Therefore, no future work is programmed. | 5/20/20 | |
| 100 | General | What is the file size limit for uploading the proposal files to DoD SAFE? | 27-Apr-20 | General | Up to 25 files can be uploaded in a package; the package size limit is 8 GB | 5/20/20 | |
| 101 | TO2 PWS, Attachment 1 | TO2 PWS states contractors are not responsible for Investigation and remediation of PFAS, except as noted in IDIQ PWS Attachment 1. Attachment 1 states that George AFB Site CG070 is contaminated with PFAS. Is the contractor responsible for investigating and/or remediating PFAS in groundwater at Site CG070? | 27-Apr-20 | TO2 PWS, Attachment 1 | The contract needs to follow the TO2 PWS statement. | 5/20/20 |
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 .