20200317_20-R-0014 NorCal RFP Questions and Answers Set 2 of 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8903-20-R-0014
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a Request for Proposals issued by the Department of the Air Force Materiel Command for BRAC Environmental Construction Optimization Services in the NorCal region. Key details include:
The RFP seeks environmental remediation and monitoring services at five sites - Mather, McClellan, Castle, Onizuka Air Force Station, and Four Lakes Air National Guard - to comply with CERCLA and RCRA requirements. Services include long-term groundwater monitoring, operations and maintenance of treatment systems, landfill closure activities, and implementing recommendations from five-year review reports. The RFP includes a variety of cost-reimbursable and firm-fixed price contract line items covering recurring and non-recurring tasks. Questions from potential offerors seek clarification on scope items such as well replacement and decommissioning responsibilities, treatment of emerging contaminants, status of ongoing studies, and access requirements. Responses provide historical context and clarify whether certain tasks are in scope for this contract or will be addressed separately if needed.
View the file
Other files
Show all 46
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 | PWS TO 02, Section 2.3 Project Website | Is the "project website" described in Section 2.3 in addition to the existing ftp site that is located on the McClellan and Mather Installations website (i.e. the on-line tool used for reviewing data and maps)? Is it different from the google Drive used to share files? Is operating/updating the existing McClellan and Mather Installations website in the scope of this RFP? | PWS TO 02, Section 2.3 Project Website | Yes, the project website is part of the overall data sharing approach, and it is in addition to the Google Drive file sharing. | |
| 2 | PWS TO 02, Section 1.5 Remedial System Components | McClellan - What is the status of the wells to be converted to extraction wells at IC 29 and the conveyance lines to the treatment system? Is this activity in the scope of this RFP? | PWS TO 02, Section 1.5 Remedial System Components | There is no specific requirement other than ongoing O&M at IC 29. Any future requirement to modify the existing extraction, monitoring, and conveyance infrastructure may be addressed through a separate task order. | |
| 3 | PWS TO 02 Section 4.5 Operations and Maintenance, 3rd QTR 2019 GWRem MR Section 4.2.2 1,2,3 TCP Evaluation | McClellan - What is the status/results of the 1,2,3 TCP sampling? Has the sample frequency been determined? Is 1,2,3 TCP part of the ongoing monitoring in the scope of this RFP? | PWS TO 02 Section 4.5 Operations and Maintenance, 3rd QTR 2019 GWRem MR Section 4.2.2 1,2,3 TCP Evaluation | Sampling at the GWTP determined presence of 1,2,3 TCP but at levels equal to the analytical detection limit of 3.0 PPT. We have stopped sampling the GWTP for 1,2,3 TCP. We will be sampling a collection of 31 key wells this coming quarter and will determine what additional actions (if any) are required to address the new MCL once we have those results. Any required adjustments to the existing GW system and well network (for presence of 1,2,3 TCP) may be done as under a separate task order. | |
| 4 | PWS TO 02 Section 6.9 Remedial Action/Corrective Measure Implementation | McClellan: Adjusting slipstream flowrate through the system based on hexavalent chromium concentration data, bag filter replacement, and resin changeout/regeneration; adjustment in SCADA (not a manual adjustment); what is the sample frequency of hexavalent chromium at the GWTP inlet? | PWS TO 02 Section 6.9 Remedial Action/Corrective Measure Implementation | We sample the plant effluent for Hex Chrome on a monthly basis. Discharge concentrations already meet permit requirements without running a slip stream thru ion exchange. Therefore, we have no slip stream for hexvalent treatment ongoing. | |
| 5 | PWS TO 02 Section 6.9 Remedial Action/Corrective Measure Implementation | McClellan: Bag Filter Replacement – frequency assessed based on effluent pump demand, air stripper sump level, or when the differential pressure between influent/effluent exceeds 8 psi. What is the current frequency for bag replacement? | PWS TO 02 Section 6.9 Remedial Action/Corrective Measure Implementation | Historically, a total of 40 bag filter change outs are done annually throughout the plant (Main plant and the CERCLA batch treatment plant combined) for bidding purposes only. | |
| 6 | PWS TO 02 Section 6.9 Remedial Action/Corrective Measure Implementation | McClellan: Ion Exchange Resin changeout is determined when concentration of hexavalent chromium at midpoint sample location GWTP 25 > 2ug/L. What the current frequency of changeout? | PWS TO 02 Section 6.9 Remedial Action/Corrective Measure Implementation | Discharge concentrations for chromium already meet permit requirements without running a slip stream thru ion exchange. Therefore we have no slip stream for hexvalent treatment ongoing. | |
| 7 | PWS TO 02 Section 6.9 Remedial Action/Corrective Measure Implementation | Castle: Is there PFAS data available for determination of the expected carbon change out frequency based on presence of PFAS in effluent? | October 2019 to September 2020 Monthly sampling reports. | Yes. Monthly sampling of the Phase 3 and OU-2 groundwater treatment systems was conducted from October 2018 through September 2019. An annual summary report is in draft and will be posted on the Administrative Record. Documents of monthly sampling data currently on the Administrative Record are: November 2018, AR#13780, December 2018, AR#6466, January 2019, AR# 6412, February 2019, AR#9478, April 2019, AR#6170, July 2019, AR#5348. | |
| 8 | Mather | At what rate do existing monitoring/extraction wells require maintenance and/or rehabilitation? | Mather | Barring incidents, the monitoring and/or extraction wells do not require any rehabiliation or rebuilding during their service life. | |
| 9 | Mather | Are copies of the current permits available for review? | Mather | A copy of the Mather General Encroachment permit can be furnished upon request. | |
| 10 | Mather | How many well replacements are anticipated annaully due to falling water table? | Mather | This number cannot be reliably determined. Since Jan 2013, it has not been deemed necessary to replace any extraction or monitoring wells due to changes in the water table level. | |
| 11 | Mather | How many Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings are anticipated per year? | Mather | Historically there have been four meetings per year. This number may vary from year to year and is for bidding purposes only. | |
| 12 | Mather: 2018 Annual GW Monitoring Rpt_Vol 1 | With regards to off-base wells: |
1) Request additional information beyond what was provided (if any) collected during 2019 regarding the status of off-base wells that may have been permanently taken out of service
2) Have any of the previously unknown screen intervals been determined that may aid in the decision process of whether monitoring may be discontinued at those wells? Mather: 2018 Annual GW Monitoring Rpt_Vol 1 The scope of task order 2 is complete as is. Any additional requirement will be handled on a case by case basis. The following is for information only:
1) The Air Force is currently discussing with the Regional Water Quality Control Board which off-base wells will no longer be sampled, or rendered in a "reserve" status. Of the remainder, not all will necessarily be sampled every year. The Air Force does not take these wells out of service, that is a decision for the property owner; the only decision is whether to sample them or not.
(2) The Air Force has no reliable information as to the screen depths of the off-base wells. One of them, OFB-40, will be examined with a down-hole camera during the next PFOS/PFOA investigation, as the screen depth interval is crucial to evaluating impact from those compounds.
| 13 | Mather: 2018 Annual GW Monitoring Rpt_Vol 1 | Was groundwater monitoring well MAFB-132 replaced in 2019? If not, is its replacement part of this new contract? | Mather: 2018 Annual GW Monitoring Rpt_Vol 1 | Yes, it was replaced, so a programmed well installation at LF04 is not part of task order 2. | |
| 14 | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Mather Base Spec Req NorCal BECOS vf3, Section 2.6.5 | Rights of access to non-AF land: what effort has historically been necessary to obtain/maintain rights of access? | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Mather Base Spec Req NorCal BECOS vf3, Section 2.6.5 | The Air Force has established easements on two adjacent properties belonging to Granite Construction Company and Tecichert, Inc. Other AF wells located outside the former Mather AFB boundaries are in streets and other rights of way. For non-AF wells, permission to sample is requested and is typically granted. | |
| 15 | Mather: Technical Memorandum Providing Justification for Termination of Monitoring at Off-Base Supply Wells and Termination of Treatment at the Moonbeam Groundwater Treatment System | Have the proposed actions presented in the Technical Memorandum been implemented? This includes 43 off-base supply wells proposed for termination of annual groundwater monitoring. | Mather | The proposed actions in the Technical Memorandum have not been implemented. | |
| 16 | Mather | Was the Final Groundwater Monitoring Well Install Work Plan for 2019 (August, 2019), Former Mather Air Force Base implemented? | Mather | Partially. Two (2) GW wells were installed, a new one at Site 57 (Bldg 4260), another to replace the GW monitoring well at LF 004. However, the contemplated soil boring at the AC&W was intended to get soil gas data only for the ISCO project, which was cancelled. This is for bidding purposes only and the information is located on the Google drive. | |
| 17 | File: TO 2 PWS Attch 1 NorCal Site List BECOS vf5 | Mather: "PBR contractor is not responsible for including PFAS in off-base and guard well sampling, treatment plant sampling, and maintaining GAC for removal of PFAS." How will the PBR contractor track GAC loading and carbon changeout frequency, and cost if testing for PFAS is not in the scope? | File: TO 2 PWS Attch 1 NorCal Site List BECOS vf5 | Operation of the GAC units at Site 7 and the MBSA GWTPs requirements are not anticipated to be handled under TO 2. | |
| 18 | Payments | Are milestone payments approved based on regulatory acceptance of reports or accomplishement of specific tasks and acceptance by AF? | PWS 2.2 | "For milestones where regulatory acceptance/concurrence is required and regulatory acceptance/concurrence cannot be obtained, the AF will evaluate the Contractor’s documents to determine if they are legally and technically acceptable to warrant payment for achieving that milestone." | |
| 19 | Payments | Are payments available for percent complete on individual tasks? | CLINs, PWS 2.2 | Payment is IAW CLINs for non-severable tasks as determined by the Milestone Payment Structure (MPS) to be submitted for AF review and concurrence post award. Payment for severable tasks will follow the MPS. Objective, measureable milestones that are completed/performed will be eligible for payment. | |
| 20 | File: 20200203_NorCal IDIQ_Sched B_CLIN Structure v2 | Mather CLIN 0017 and 0018 LTM are shown as Performance Based Services, where similar items for Castle (0007 and 0008 and McClellan (0026 and 0027) are identified as Recurring Services. Are the Mather CLINs titles correctly? | File: 20200203_NorCal IDIQ_Sched B_CLIN Structure v2 | Mather CLIN 0017 and 0018. The title stating "Performance Based Services" should read "Recurring Services". The typographical error does not substantially change the requirement for these CLINs as severable line items. | |
| 24 | TO 2 PWS 1.1 | The last two paragraphs of TO 2 PWS Section 1.1 reference Onizuka AFS and Four Lakes ANGS. While we understand that work may be performed at these installations under the IDIQ contract, these installations are not listed in the TO 2 Site Lists or Base Specific Requirements (Attachments 1 and 2). Please confirm that these two installations are not part of TO 2. | TO 2 PWS 1.1 | Confirmed, Onizuka AFS and Four Lakes ANGS are on the IDIQ but are not a part of task order (TO) 2. | |
| 25 | TO 2 PWS | Extraction well and monitoring well installation and decommissioning are not mentioned in the Base Specific Requirements in Attachment 2. Please confirm the scope for TO 2 does not include well installation activities for each site and does not included well decommissioning activities for Mather and McClellan. A separate question is provided for well decomissioning requirements at Castle. | TO 2 PWS | This is not under TO 2 and will be handled on a case by case basis. | |
| 26 | TO 2 PWS | If monitoring wells and/or groundwater extraction wells installations for all sites at Castle, McClellan, and Mather are included under TO 2, please provide details on the number of wells by type (monitoring and extraction), depths, diameters, and flowrates (for extraction wells) commensurate with the Government’s response to Draft PWS Question #107. | TO 2 PWS | Since the specific requirements for McClellan and Mather well installation and decommissioning are uncertain at this time. This will not be under TO 2 and will be handled on a case by case basis. Historically for Castle assume 8 monitoring wells, approx. 160-170 ft bgs, 2 in diameter. | |
| 27 | TO 2 PWS | If monitoring wells and/or groundwater extraction wells decommissioning are included for McClellan and Mather sites under TO 2, please provide details on the number of wells by depths and diameters commensurate with the Government’s response to Draft PWS Question #107. | TO 2 PWS | Since the specific requirements for well installation and decommissioning are uncertain at this time, if and when these become base-specific requirements, they will be handled on a case by case basis. | |
| 28 | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Castle Base Spec Req | Please confirm that the contractor is responsible for decommissioning of dry wells at Castle as presented in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 of Part 1 of the Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring 2018 Annual Report for former Castle AFB. | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Castle Base Spec Req | This is not a requirement under TO 2 and will be handled on a case by case basis. | |
| 29 | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 McClellan Base Spec Req | We understand that the current McClellan contractor manages an interactive technical IRP website providing access to analytical and location data for regulators. There are no requirements for this website in the TO 2 base-specific requirements. Please confirm that this is included within the scope of TO 2, and please provide the requirements. | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 McClellan Base Spec Req | The requirement to manage and operate an interactive technical IRP website that provides users access to McClellan analytical and location data for the GW monitoring program is apart of the TO 2 base-specific requirements. As new data is acquired through the year the successful contractor will perform all updates necessary all users efficent access to the GW data and related tables, figures, plats, etc. | |
| 30 | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 McClellan Base Spec Req | The final RFP states only CU O&M is included in TO 2 for LF010. Please provide what activities would be included in CU O&M (e.g., SWPP, leachate collection). | Google Drive | Examples of these historical activities, for bidding purposes only, are referenced on the Google drive. CU O&M include (but is not limited to): Opening the CU at the start of each field season (removing and storing winterization tarps, pumps, piping, etc), and reversing this process at the end of the field season (typically by 1 Nov), receiving waste soil for placement into the CU, managing that placement, spreading and complacting all received soils. Providing a trained rad technician to scan trucks before departing the CU facility (to stop rad contaminated soil from leaving the facility), verifying the acceptance criteria for soils is met before accepting soil into the CU. Performing compliance sampling required by the radiological permit to ensure safe operation of the facility. Respond to and correct incidents that occur throughout the year (i.e. displacement of winterization tarps by storm events, efficient removal of collected stormwater from the winterization tarps. Management, transport, treatment, and discharge of collected leachate from the CU leahcate collection system. | |
| 31 | Draft RFP Q&A | Draft RFP Q&A #107 provided assumptions for replacement of dry wells at Castle. Please provide assumptions for the number and depth of expected dry well replacements for Mather and McClellan as well. | Google Drive | Examples of these historical activities, for bidding purposes only, are referenced on the Google drive. McClellan has no specific requirement for replacement of dry wells. In the event we have a new requirement in the future for dry well replacement this may be accomplished on a future task order. | |
| 32 | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Castle Base Spec Req | Section 1.1 of FA8903-20-R-0014 TO 2, Attachment 2 – Base Specific Requirements, Castle states the following regarding sampling for 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP): “Monitoring for 1,2,3-TCP in drinking water wells and irrigation wells as part of the on-going long-term groundwater sampling program and monitoring of the Main Base Plume; as part of the monthly sampling of influent, primary effluent, and final effluent from the OU-1 and OU-2 groundwater treatment plants; in groundwater wells at Landfills 4 and 5; and at private drinking water wells as required to ensure protection of public.” | |||
| Are groundwater monitoring and extraction wells beyond those at Landfills 4 and 5 to be monitored for TCP? | Google Drive | The information for the groundwater monitoring and extraction wells beyond those at Landfills 4 and 5 are located in the Part 1 of the Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring 2018 Annual Report for former Castle AFB found on the Google drive. | |||
| 33 | IDIQ PWS Attachment 1 NorCal Site List | Castle Site CSS114 is included in the IDIQ PWS Attachment 1 – Base Site List; however, CSS114 is to be closed under the current contract. Please confirm if CSS114 should be included in the IDIQ site list. | IDIQ PWS Attachment 1 NorCal Site List | CSS114 is confirmed, correct as is. | |
| 34 | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Castle Base Spec Req | The remedies for LF007 and LF008 at Former Castle AF include ongoing cap LTM (cap maintenance, landfill gas monitoring, groundwater monitoring) and indicated in FA8903-20-R-0014 TO 2, Attachment 1 – Base Site List. The 30-year post-closure period will end during the POP. Previous iso-settlement analyses have identified non-uniform settlement related to the underlying waste trenches where the liner is suspended above the underlying soil; however, areas of ponding have not been observed in the field and proper drainage is occurring. The 2019 iso-settlement analysis is pending. If non-uniform settlement related to the underlying waste trenches continues, is the contractor responsible for filling, regrading, and reseeding the impacted areas even if areas of ponding are not observed? | Google Drive | Historically there is a settlement survey completed every 5 years and corrective measures to address settlement will be required twice during the length of the contract. This information is provided for bidding purposes only and is located on the Google drive. | |
| 35 | Draft RFP Q&A | In response to a previous questions, the AF stated that Landfill 4 (LF007) at Castle originally had 6 wells, now has 4; Landfill 5 (LF008) originally had 4 wells, still has 4; and assume all 10 wells need to be replaced to 170 ft. bgs. The water table has decreased between 2 and 3 feet per year at Castle over the last 20 years. If the replacement wells go dry during the POP, is the contractor responsible for replacing them a second time? | NA | Not required under TO 2 this will be handled on a case by case basis. | |
| 36 | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Castle Base Spec Req | Will the AF provide detailed as-built drawings for the extraction and injection conveyance lines at Castle to use when responding to Underground Service Alert (USA) tickets? | NA | The AF will provide this information post award once requested as part of the transition of information from the current PBR contractor to the successful offeror of this acquisition. | |
| 37 | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Castle Base Spec Req | Will the AF provide access to the municipal wells, production wells, and domestic wells that are sampled under the long-term groundwater sampling program at Castle? | NA | The AF will provide this information post award once requested as part of the transition of information from the current PBR contractor to the successful offeror of this acquisition. | |
| 38 | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Castle Base Spec Req | Is the contractor responsible for repair of leaks in extraction or injection conveyance lines at Castle if the leaks are caused by damage from tenants or land owners? | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Castle Base Spec Req | This is generally accepted as part of O&M of the OU-2 and Phase 3 groundwater treatment systems. Historically this has occurred once a year to either the extraction or injection lines. | |
| 39 | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Castle Base Spec Req | What are the requirements for flight line access at Castle? | Google Drive | Historically contractors have coordinated with the Airport Manager Mr. Robert Guerrero, (209) 564-9109. This information is also located on the Google drive. | |
| 40 | TO 2 PWS Attch 2 Castle Base Spec Req | What are the requirements to access the sites located on Bureau of Prisons property at the former Castle AFB? | Google Drive | Historically contractors have coordinated with the Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Dale Day, Facilities Manager (209) 386-0257. This information is also located on the Google drive. | |
| 41 | Draft RFP Q&A | We noted that the responses to the Draft RFP were not uploaded to the beta.sam webpage for the final solicitation. Because there were specific answers and assumptions identified in that document, and due to the structure of beta.sam, we request that the file be incorporated into this solicitation and uploaded to the final solicitation webpage. | Draft RFP Q&A | The Draft RFP responses are located on beta.sam.gov; please utilize search term "BECOS" to locate the Draft RFP notice. The Draft RFP Q&As are an attachment to the Draft RFP notice. In order to ensure there is not confusion with the Q&As for the RFP, only the RFP Q&As will be posted to the RFP notice. | |
| 42 | Is a radiological materials handling license, or any other additional license not mentioned in the solicitation, required for any activities associated with McClellan site LF010? | Under TO 2, no additional licenses will be needed. | |||
| 43 | Please clarify how the Air Force would prefer five-year review costs should be incorporated into the Price Model. None of the CLINs explicitly address five-year review costs. | Contractor may determine how the costs will be incorporated into the Price Model. | |||
| 45 | Please provide contractor paid utility amounts or costs for the 5 project sites (Mather, McClellan, Castle, Onizuka, and the Four Lakes Air National Guard) for electricity, gas, water, and sewer services? | Google Drive | The information is located on the Google drive. | ||
| 50 | Attachment 2, Norcal Region - Castle, 1.1 Scope. 4th bullet - Implement recommendations noted in the March 2019 Five Year Review Report. | ||||
| 2019 Five-Year Review AR#585780 page 70 of 165. | Castle: In a Five-Year Review Interview, the regulator noted that falling groundwater levels continues to be a persistent problem in Castle Shallow Hydrostratigraphic Zone (HSZ) monitoring wells. Does this RPF include investigating residual VOC concentrations in the former hotspots in the Shallow HSZ, as suggested by the regulator? | NA | No, not under TO 2 this will be handled on a case by case basis. | ||
| 51 | Attachment 2, Norcal Region - Castle, 1.1 Scope. 4th bullet - Implement recommendations noted in the March 2019 Five Year Review Report. | ||||
| 2019 Five-Year Review AR#585780 page 70 of 165. | Castle: In the Five-Year Report Responses to Agency Comments " the Air Force will need to amend the ROD either through a ROD amendment or Explanation of Significant difference to include PFAS compounds as contaminants of concern in groundwater at the site." ... 1,2,3-TCP may also need to be addressed by a ROD amendment. Is preparation of ROD amendments in this scope of this RFP? | NA | No, not under TO 2 this will be handled on a case by case basis. | ||
| 52 | PWS TO 02 Section 4.5 Operations and Maintenance, 3rd QTR 2018 O&M Report, page 34 | Castle: In the 2018 O&M Report, Response to Agency Comments there was a request to submit an updated memo requesting Removal of Inorganic Constituents from Castle Airport Groundwater, Cost Analysis and Request for Waiver. Comment is in regards to effluent concentrations and discharge standards for treated groundwater established in the ROD and the exceedances in inorganic analytes. AF requested a waiver in 2002. What is the status of this work? Is this evaluation in the scope of the RFP? | NA | Ongoing. No, this is not included in TO 2. | |
| 53 | PWS TO 02 Section 4.5 Operations and Maintenance, 3rd QTR 2018 O&M Report, page 34 | Castle: In the 2018 O&M Report, the contractor stated that the Air Force may choose to install wellhead treatment at IW40 as a future optimization to reduce remedial timeframe. If this or other wells are identified to increase optimization thereby reducing the remedial timeframe, are the costs of installing and operating wellhead treatment systems in the scope of this RFP? | NA | No, this is not included under TO 2 and will be handled on a case by case basis. | |
| 54 | PWS TO 02 Section 4.5 Operations and Maintenance, 3rd QTR 2018 O&M Report, page 34 | Castle: In the 2018 O&M Report, the contractor stated that well IW40 is currently sampled quarterly and if TCE concentrations show an increasing trend, there may be a need to discuss additional investigation of the IW40 plume with the regulatory agencies. Is the additional investigation of the IW40 plume in the scope of this RFP? | NA | No, this is not included under TO 2 and will be handled on a case by case basis. | |
| 55 | Attachment 2, Norcal Region - Castle, 1.1 Scope. 4th bullet - Implement recommendations noted in the March 2019 Five Year Review Report |
2019 Five-Year Review AR#585780 page 153 and 154 of 165
| Castle: In the Five-Year Report Responses to Agency Comments " the Air Force agreed to include an evaluation for wellhead treatment or additional remedial action at IW40 and downgradient wells in the Annual OM &M reports" Is this remedial action in the scope of the RFP? | NA | No, this is not included under TO 2 and will be handled on a case by case basis. | |||
| 56 | PWS TO 02 Section 4.5 Operations and Maintenance, 3rd QTR 2018 O&M M Report, page 42 | Castle: In the 2018 O&M Report, the contractor stated that MW951 well head treatment system was shutdown and that the well was sampled at least semiannually through Q4/19. They note that if TCE concentrations continue to increase, the need for further action will be evaluated. Is restarting and operating the system in the scope of this RFP? | PWS TO 02 Section 4.5 Operations and Maintenance, 3rd QTR 2018 O&M M Report, page 42 | MW951 well head treatment system was decommissioned in 2018 and MW951 is now just a monitoring well. If TCE concentrations increase and a new wellhead system is required then this may be handled with a separate task order, on a case by case basis. | |
| 57 | PWS TO 02 Section 4.5 Operations and Maintenance, 3rd QTR 2018 O&M Report, page 42 | Castle: In the 2018 O&M Report, Table 4-2 lists 23 wells eligble for decommissioning, an additional 2 wells are listed as eligble for decommissioning in Table 3-2; per response to Agency comments these wells will be decommissioned under the next contract. Is this task in the scope of the RFP? | PWS TO 02 Section 4.5 Operations and Maintenance, 3rd QTR 2018 O&M Report, page 42 | No, this is not included under TO 2 and will be handled on a case by case basis. | |
| 58 | PWS TO 02 Section 6.9 Remedial Action/Corrective Measure Implementation | Castle: According to the 2019 BCT Meeting summary, the Water Board had requested two additional lead investigations and requested the AF include the project in FY20 program for funding (at B850 to determine lead extent in soil near effluent discharge area and at B1454 to determine lead extent in soil and to confirm degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons). Is this work in the scope of the RFP? | PWS TO 02 Section 6.9 Remedial Action/Corrective Measure Implementation | No, this is not included under TO 2 and will be handled on a case by case basis. | |
| 59 | Information from Proposal Reference List | ||||
| BCT 6/6/2019 AR#593126 page 85 of 102; 20191206_Draft RFP Response.xlsx Q.107 | Castle: Based on the 2019 BCT Meeting summary, there is funding to install two landfill replacement wells. What is the status of this task? Per the Response to Questions, 10 replacement wells to 170 feet are part of RFP TO2. | PWS Section 1.1 | Draft Work Plan awaiting EPA comments. Well installation scheduled for late Spring 2020 and will be performed by current PBR contractor. Future additional well installs are covered under Section 1.1 of TO 2. | ||
| 60 | Annual Institutional control Inspection Report dated April 26, 2018 AR#572297 pages 17, 18, 19, and 21 of 22 | In the 2018 Annual Institutional Controls (ICs) Report, field checklists were completed for CTU108, SD195, ST084, and CSS114. Do these sites still require ICs; they were not included in BECOS IDIQ PWS Attachment 1? | CLIN 0007 | SD195 is included, see CLIN 0007. | |
| 61 | Attachment 2, Norcal Region Castle, 1.1 Scope. 4th bullet - Implement recommendations noted in the March 2019 Five Year Review Report. |
2019 Five-Year Review AR#585780 page 154 of 165
| Castle: In the 2017 O&M, the regulator commented that the TCE levels (8.8 µg/L) were above the MCL in the off-base confined HSZ well MW1008 and that TCE is not currently being captured. Based on the 2019 5YR Review, the well was resampled in November and December 2018 and concentrations were below MCLs. If concentrations rebound above MCLs, will treatment options be included in the scope of this RFP? | NA | No, this is not included under TO 2 and will be handled on a case by case basis. | |||
| 67 | Section L, 5.4 | - It is not readily apparent whether we are being asked to provide a bid on a year to year basis, or for the base year plus annual escalations. | |||
| - If the request is to cost the base year with excalations, how do variations in monitoring programs (semiannual, biennial) between years get factored into our costing assumptions? | Section L, 5.4 | Contractor may determine how the costs will be incorporated into the Price Model, unless otherwise instructured IAW Section L. | |||
| 68 | Section L, 2.3 | Please confirm whether 11 x 17 pages (folded to 8.5 x 11) can be used and if each side counts as 2 pages. | Section L, 2.3 | "Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts." | |
| 75 | TO2 PWS Attch 2 Castle Base Spec Req | Please confirm that compliance with AFGM2019-32-01 is required for PFAS-impacted spent carbon. | NA | PFAS requirements not included in TO 2 will be handled on a case by case basis. The contract requires compliance with applicable policies and regulations. |
FA8903-20-R-0014
NorCal Region Questions and Answers &P
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .