Attachment 1-Performance Work Statement dated 20260331.pdf

Solicitation Number: FA8903-26-R-0001

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

FOR

MISSISSIPPI GROUP

OPTIMIZED REMEDIATION CONTRACT

AT

COLUMBUS AIR FORCE BASE, MISSISSIPPI

KEESLER AIR FORCE BASE, MISSISSIPPI

CONTRACT NUMBER: TBD

31 MARCH 2026

FY26 Version 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SCOPE

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.2 OVERVIEW OF ORC SCOPE AND REQUIREMENTS

1.2.1 Specific Scope Discussion and Limits

1.2.2 Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection, Remedial Investigation or Remedial Investigation/Feasibility

Study (including Supplemental Investigations), and Decision Document

1.2.3 Response Complete or Site Closeout

1.2.4 Remedial Action-Operation with Optimization

1.2.5 Remedial Action-Operation and Reduce Life Cycle Cost; Long Term Management and Reduce Life

Cycle Cost

1.2.6 Remedial Action-Operation or Long-Term Management (as appropriate)

1.2.7 Alternate Objectives

1.3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

1.3.1 Table 1: Performance Table

1.3.2 Additional Scope Discussion and Limits

2.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

3.0 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION AND PROPERTY

4.0 MANAGEMENT, PLANNING, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

4.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

4.2 SCHEDULE AND PLANNING REQUIREMENTS – INTEGRATED MASTER SCHEDULE

4.3 MILESTONE PAYMENT SCHEDULE

4.4 COST AND STATUS REPORTING

4.5 ORC DOCUMENT REPOSITORY

4.6 MEETING AND CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS

4.6.1 Meeting/Teleconference Support

4.6.2 Public Meetings and Hearings

4.6.2.1 Community Involvement Plan (CIP) Update

4.7. SPATIAL DATA (MAP) REQUIREMENTS

4.8 INFORMATION SECURITY

4.8.1 Cybersecurity

4.9 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

4.10 PERMITS

4.10.1 Environmental Permits

4.10.2 Rights of Access to Non-AF Real Property

4.11 PHOTO DOCUMENTATION

4.12 REMOTE AND/OR AUSTERE SITES

4.13 SITE ACCESS

4.14 WORKSITE ACTIVITIES AND COORDINATION

4.14.1 Coordination of Activities

4.14.2 Hazardous Material, and Hazardous Waste Permitting and Reporting

4.14.2.1 Regulatory Requirements

4.15 ORC TRANSITION PLAN

5.0 CHEMISTRY REQUIREMENTS

5.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE

5.2 LABORATORY SELECTION

5.3 ANALYTICAL DATA MANAGEMENT

5.4 RECORD KEEPING

5.5 PFAS SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

6.0 PLANS AND REPORTS

6.1 QUALITY PROGRAM PLANS

6.1.1 Work Plans

6.1.2 Health and Safety Plan

6.1.3 Construction Quality Plan

6.2 TECHNICAL PLANS AND REPORTS

7.0 SITE WORK

7.1 CONSERVATION

7.2 SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND FIELD INVESTIGATION

7.3 SITE PREPARATION

7.4 DEMOLITION

7.5 SITE RESTORATION

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROCESS APPLICATION

8.1.1 Conceptual Site Model Guidance

8.1.2 Exit Strategy

8.1.3 Performance and Optimization

8.2 TRANSITION OF WORK

8.2.1 Table 2: Transition of Work Table

8.2.2 Table 3: Sampling Transition Table

8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCTION

8.3.1 Design

8.3.2 Inspection

8.3.3 Delivery and Warranty

8.4 RESOURCES PROGRAM INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

8.5 INNOVATIVE AND PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES

8.6 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

8.7 ORDNANCE REMOVAL AND SUPPORT

8.8 HAZARDOUS WASTE REMOVAL AND SUPPORT

8.9 STUDY EFFORT INCIDENTAL TO REMEDY OR CORRECTIVE ACTION

8.10 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUPPORT

9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

10.0 POINTS OF CONTACT

11.0 CONTRACTOR MANPOWER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

1.0 SCOPE

This requirement is for environmental remediation activities at Columbus Air Force Base (AFB) and Keesler AFB, Mississippi (MS). This Performance Work Statement (PWS) defines the scope of environmental services necessary to conduct site restoration under the Optimized Remediation Contract (ORC). The range of activities includes investigation, design, construction of remedial systems, operation and maintenance of established remedies, optimization at applicable sites, and achievement of site-specific objectives. The Contractor shall undertake Environmental Remediation activities to achieve Performance Objectives (POs) at 17 Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites.

NOTE: For purposes of this ORC, the term “Government” includes the Department of the Air Force (DAF) and 772d Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (ESS). While regulators are a governmental entity, they are also a third party over whom the DAF has no control and, as such, will be referred to as “regulators.”

1.1 Introduction

Columbus AFB Columbus AFB is located in Lowndes County in northeastern Mississippi, approximately nine miles north of downtown Columbus, MS and approximately 10 miles from the Alabama state line. Columbus AFB covers approximately 4,930 acres of which 1,200 acres are mixed hardwood forest and pine plantation communities. The surrounding area is rural and includes primarily residential and agricultural land, small businesses, and sand and gravel operations scattered throughout the area. Wildlife and recreation areas are also common in the surrounding area. Initially a homestead site, Columbus AFB was approved by the War Department as Columbus Army Airfield in 1941. Since that time, the primary mission at the base has been associated with pilot training. After a brief period of inactivity from 1946 to 1950, the base was reactivated as a contract pilot training school in 1951. In 1956, Columbus AFB was transferred to the Strategic Air Command for fourteen years. Since 1969, the mission at Columbus AFB has been to provide introductory and specialized undergraduate pilot training under the Air Education Training Command (AETC), hosted by the 14th Flying Training Wing. The base also operates an auxiliary field in Noxubee and Kemper counties, approximately 45 miles south of the main base.

Remediation activities at Columbus AFB are being conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP). The AF is the lead agency for Columbus AFB with regulatory support provided by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

Keesler AFB Keesler AFB is the home to the 2d AF and, also the 81st Training Wing, one of the AETC’s largest technical training wings. Keesler AFB is located within the city of Biloxi, in Harrison

County, MS. The Base is located on a narrow peninsula running west to east with the Back Bay of Biloxi to the north and the MS Sound 0.5 mile to the south. The property surrounding Keesler AFB is largely residential. Primary access to the base is from U.S. Interstate 110 via Division Street, which is to the east of the base. The total land area at Keesler AFB is approximately 1,794 acres of noncontiguous land.

Keesler AFB was activated in June 1941 as a training center for aircraft mechanics. Before the AF used the site, a small public airfield occupied the area. After World War II, Keesler AFB was designated as a permanent military base. Electronics, communications, personnel, and pilot training programs later were added to the existing training programs. In 1947, the radar training school was transferred to Keesler AFB from Boca Raton, Florida. Communications and control courses were transferred to the Base from Scott AFB, Illinois in 1958. Personnel and administrative career training were transferred from Amarillo AFB, Texas, to Keesler AFB in 1968.

In 1967, the 3389th Pilot Training Squadron was activated at the base. The training program used T-28 aircraft and operated from 1967 until 1973. Keesler AFB's current mission focuses on four main areas: technical training, medical care, flying operations, and support. The 81st Training Group annually provides training to more than 30,000 officers, airmen, and civilian employees of the AF, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, other U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) agencies and DoD contractors, as well as allied nations. The medical facility at Keesler AFB is the second largest in the AF. The 403d Wing is the largest flying organization at Keesler AFB and the only Air Force Reserve Command wing in MS. The 403d Wing performs dual missions: tactical airlift support during peace- and war-time contingencies, and aerial weather reconnaissance in support of the US Department of Commerce.

Maintenance activities to support the many aircraft flying missions include industrial shops that maintain, fabricate, and repair components of aircraft and ground equipment. The base also includes electronics, communications, and personnel training schools.

Remediation activities at Keesler AFB are being conducted pursuant to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 4 is the Lead Agency and provides regulatory oversight. Additional regulatory support is provided by MDEQ. Keesler AFB is being administered under RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit, MS2 570 024 164, which expires on 27 November 2027.

1.2 Overview of ORC Scope and Requirements

The Contractor shall perform all the necessary environmental remediation activities needed to achieve the performance requirement described in Section 1.3 of the PWS inclusive of the POs listed in Table 1: Performance Table, and additional scope in 1.3.2. This PWS and enclosures listed below detail the project requirements needed to meet the AF objectives:

• Enclosure 1 – Acronyms and Definitions

• Enclosure 2 – NOT APPLICABLE

• Enclosure 3 – NOT APPLICABLE

• Enclosure 4 – Community Involvement Plan (CIP) Guidance version 4.2

• Enclosure 5 – DAF Essential Information

The intent of the ORC initiative is to advance site cleanup during the Period of Performance (POP) in the most efficient and cost-effective manner, as supported by a cost-benefit analysis and exit strategy that achieves the greatest reduction in life-cycle cost (LCC). The AF is interested in substantial reduction of long-term environmental liabilities and total LCC.

However, costs should be commensurate with the level of effort required to achieve each PO and all potential technical contingencies within reason. Technical approaches that are simply reduced to a minimal level of effort with no well-planned contingencies provide no assurance to the Government that the POs will be achieved without work stoppages or change orders which is not in keeping with the intent of this performance based contracting effort. The AF is required to implement remedies as necessary to enable the mission, protect human health and the environment, and comply with laws and regulations. The goal of the ORC initiative is to ensure the AF continues to fulfill all facets of its Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) mission, by effectively and efficiently managing the program in a performance-based, results-oriented, and cost-conscious framework.

The AF requires that all sites be remediated to standards that allow for the current or reasonably anticipated future land use of the property. Accurate documentation and reporting of contaminant removal and cost savings are critical adjuncts to optimization success. In keeping with Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32- 7020, the AF defines optimization under the ORC as the reduction of contaminant mass and concentrations, reduction in LCC, or any combination of activities leading to acceleration of Response Complete (RC)/Site Closeout (SC) as a result of remedial implementation the Contractor undertakes, above and beyond what is required to maintain compliance in accordance with an approved Decision Document (DD).

The Contractor shall maintain compliance with all DDs/Records of Decision (RODs)/Proposed Plans/RCRA Permits that are currently in place until no longer required, or an alternate approach is approved. The contractor shall conduct DD/ROD amendments or Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) as required to implement new approach(es).

The Contractor shall function as an integral team member in support of the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) mission to include the sharing of information with other AFCEC Contractors, and AF personnel, in cooperation with community stakeholders, regulators, and other Government entities.

Requirements for efficient management of this contract include the achievement of the POs in the Performance Period (PP) per Table 1 and work described in Section 1.3.2 of this PWS.

Requirements include timely identification and solution of impediments to successful project execution. The Contractor shall provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, tools, materials, and other items necessary to perform the tasks defined in this PWS. The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within the PP specified in accordance with Section 3.0. AFCEC will rely on the

Contractor’s expertise in recognizing and addressing problematic issues during the execution of this contract. The Contractor shall perform all work in accordance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. The Contractor shall also comply with installation regulations.

Remedies shall conform to environmental permits, DD requirements, or other legal requirements.

The Contractor shall continue work throughout the entire duration of the POP. The Contractor’s local office presence will be relied upon to provide rapid-response actions for field activities and on-site meetings.

1.2.1 Specific Scope Discussion and Limits

The scope of this contract is to perform environmental remediation services for the sites listed in Table 1 and Section 1.3.2. The ORC Contractor shall assume contractual liability and responsibility for achieving the POs. If the selected technical approach is not working, as demonstrated by the trends in the performance model, the Contractor shall develop and implement a revised technical approach to achieve the POs, including DD amendments, if required, to implement the remedial approach. This scope includes all known contaminants linked to the specific sites in this PWS (includes contaminants on, under, or sourced at/migrating from the specific sites) without regard to quantity (e.g., plume size, concentrations). See reference to Section 1.3.2 of this PWS for exclusions. The AF remains statutorily responsible for all sites listed in Table 1 and work described in Section 1.3.2. The Contractor shall perform all work in accordance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, as well as installation regulations, and is responsible for obtaining certifications and licenses required to complete all aspects of this project.

1.2.2 Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection, Remedial Investigation or Remedial

Investigation/Feasibility Study (including Supplemental Investigations), and Decision Document

Table 1 of the PWS identifies Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI), Remedial Investigation (RI) or RI/Feasibility Study (FS), including Supplemental Investigations, and DDs as the PO for selected sites. The Contractor is responsible for achieving these POs as identified in Table 1 and work described in Section 1.3.2. See PO definitions in Enclosure 1, Acronyms and Definitions.

1.2.3 Response Complete or Site Closeout

Table 1 of the PWS identifies RC or SC as PO for selected sites. The Contractor is responsible for achieving these objectives as identified in Table 1 and work described in Section 1.3.2. See PO definitions in Enclosure 1, Acronyms and Definitions. The performance components, including the need for a performance model, are described in Section 8.1.3.

1.2.4 Remedial Action-Operation with Optimization

Table 1 of the PWS identifies the following POs which include optimization as follows: 1.

Remedy in Place (RIP) and Remedial Action-Operation (RA-O) with Optimization, 2. DD Amendment (or Explanation of Significant Differences [ESD]) with Remedy Implementation and RA-O with Optimization, or 3. RA-O with Optimization. The Contractor is responsible for achieving these POs as identified in Table 1: Performance Table and additional scope described in Section 1.3.2. See PO definitions in Enclosure 1, Acronyms and Definitions.

The optimization and performance components, including the need for a performance model showing interim and final performance payment milestones, are described in Section 8.1.3.

Optimization goals may include one or more of the following:

• Shorten time to RC, SC, or other DoD goals.

• Improve remedy performance and/or accelerate the progress of the remediation.

• Enhance source or plume control for engineering systems.

1.2.5 Remedial Action-Operation and Reduce Life Cycle Cost; Long Term Management and Reduce Life Cycle Cost

NOT APPLICABLE

1.2.6 Remedial Action-Operation or Long-Term Management (as appropriate) Table 1 of the PWS identifies RA-O or LTM in accordance with the approved DD/ROD as the PO for selected sites. The Contractor shall achieve the following objectives for each RA-O and LTM site:

• Maintain compliance with all DDs and permits (currently in place or to be approved) throughout the PP. Update or revise site-specific work plans, monitoring plans, and/or DDs, as appropriate.

• For RA-O sites, develop performance models addressing all Contaminants of Concern (COC) and breakdown products. Refer to Section 8.1.3.1, Performance Models.

• Provide a realistic projection to achieve SC or RC after the POP (the Contractor shall identify which PO is the optimal endpoint).

1.2.7 Alternate Objectives

This section and the subparagraphs below describe the Alternate Objective Sites and a general overview of the work associated with these sites. Please see Table 1 and work described in Section 1.3.2 for specific elements of work required for each site with an Alternate Objective PO. These sites have complex attributes that have, to date, inhibited progress toward the achievement of RC. For Alternate Objective sites, as for all sites in Table 1 of the PWS where applicable, the Contractor shall maintain compliance throughout the POP of the contract with all existing regulatory requirements, including but not limited to regulations, FFAs, RCRA Permits, final or interim RODs, or other equivalent remedial DDs. The Contractor is responsible for implementing changes to the monitoring program based on activities conducted in the Advanced Site Characterization (PWS Section 1.2.7.1), including the addition and decommissioning of wells in the monitoring well network as agreed by all parties and the addition of new delineation monitoring where new information indicates our understanding of the plumes is changed.

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

1. Achieving RC is expected to require substantially longer than 30 years.

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

3. Achieving RC is anticipated to require advanced site characterization technologies to improve the Conceptual Site Model (CSM), determine appropriate remedial technology, and/or characterize recently regulated contaminants.

The AF will use data and information obtained during execution of this PWS to determine restoration potential and future investment strategies at Alternate Objective sites. Each Sub- Contract Line Item Number (Sub-CLIN) for the Alternate Objective sites will only be awarded if the activities are needed to determine the future investment strategy for the site. The decision to award each Sub-CLIN resides solely at the discretion of the AF.

The Contractor shall conduct project scoping sessions before work plan development and throughout the planning and execution of the project to meet the PO, including the Installation Point(s) of Contact (POC[s]), the AFCEC Program Manager (PM) and Remedial Project Manager (RPM), the AF technical support team, and the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). Upon approval by the AF and the COR, the Contractor shall participate in scoping sessions with the regulators as appropriate.

1.2.7.1 Advanced Site Characterization

Based on existing data, the AF has determined that the existing remedial approaches at the Alternative Objective sites are not achieving satisfactory remedial progress toward their intended goals. In order for the AF to determine the best path forward for these sites, the Contractor shall conduct Advanced Site Characterization to collect data to update and refine the CSM in order to achieve the following goals: (1) Fill data gaps; and (2) Collect data needed to: (A) Determine why existing and previous remedial actions are not effective at achieving remedial progress; (B) Determine appropriate remedial technology(ies) based on site conditions; (C) Develop remediation design parameters for recommended technology(ies); and (D) Determine extent and concentrations of recently regulated contaminants, if required.

Advanced Site Characterization includes one or more of the following three activities: (1) Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI), (2) Revised CSM, and (3) Groundwater Monitoring Program Update.

1.2.7.1.1 Supplemental Site Investigation

The Contractor shall conduct a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) to collect data necessary to improve the CSM, determine appropriate remedial technology, support remediation design and construction, and/or characterize recently regulated contaminants. The Contractor shall implement advanced characterization methods, both established approaches and state-of-science techniques consistent with AF, regulatory, Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), and Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program/Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (SERDP/ESTCP) guidance to attain these objectives.

Data collection includes better definition of the geology, hydrogeology, geochemistry, and/or source(s) and distribution of COCs, as required. The Contractor shall evaluate the need for, and collect the following data where appropriate: (1) Source Zone Delineation; (2) Source Mass/Extent1,2,3; (3) Vertical and lateral extent of contamination, if not sufficiently defined; (4) Plume Stability4; (5) Migration pathway, rates, and fluxes in 3-D; (6) Mass distribution; (7) Biogeochemical conditions and influences on contaminant degradation pathways; (8) Impact of recent and historical remedies on site conditions; and (9) Comprehensive Risk including the vapor intrusion pathway.

The SSI report shall document data collection efforts to include a risk evaluation, if appropriate.

The Contractor shall evaluate and provide recommendations regarding whether additional source control is needed or whether the plume, or portions of the plume, are amenable to natural attenuation by conducting source strength and plume stability evaluations as needed.

1.2.7.1.2 Conceptual Site Model

The Contractor shall develop a revised CSM in 3-D to include establishing or updating existing fate and transport models based on existing data and data gathered during the SSI. The CSM should cover the source area and the distal plume, to include the lateral and vertical extent of the contaminants in the context of geologic/hydrogeological parameters and the remedial actions conducted to date.

1.2.7.1.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program Update

The Contractor shall evaluate the current horizontal and vertical well distribution to determine if the following can be properly evaluated:

Remedy performance in treatment areas Hydrogeology, plume geometry, horizontal and vertical plume stability, and matrix diffusion across site Plume migration through use of perimeter/boundary wells and sentinel wells

Based on the well network evaluation, coordinated and approved by the Government and regulators (if required), the Contractor shall optimize the monitoring well network to include adjusting sample collection frequency and the addition of new wells as appropriate. The Contractor shall update the Basewide or Site-Specific Monitoring Plan or other equivalent document, as appropriate.

1.2.7.2 Remedy Evaluation and Recommendation

Based on all existing data and data gathered during the Advanced Site Characterization, the Contractor shall evaluate the existing active and/or passive remedy(ies)5,6,7. The Contractor shall

1 ITRC. (2015). Integrated DNAPL Site Characterization and Tool Selection.

2 SERDP/ESTCP. (2012). Matrix Diffusion Tool Kit.

3 USEPA. (2009). Evaluating Natural Source Zone Depletion at Sites with LNAPL.

4 USEPA. (2014). High Resolution Site Characterization for Groundwater Short Course, 23rd Annual NARPM Training Program.5 USEPA. (2010). Best Management Practices.

5 USEPA. (2010). Best Management Practices.

6 USEPA. (2014). Groundwater Remedy Completion Strategy.

7 ITRC. (2006). Performance-Based Management.

provide recommendations to augment, modify, and/or replace the existing remedy8. The evaluation and recommendations will include a cost-benefit analysis and evaluation of the usability, expandability, and/or discontinued use of any existing infrastructure. All remedy recommendations must include a performance model addressing all COCs and breakdown products. Refer to Section 8.1.3.1, Performance Models.

Where necessary to evaluate the proposed technology, the Contractor shall conduct pilot-scale technology demonstrations. The Contractor shall identify appropriate remedial technologies and target zones, design/plan, conduct, and evaluate the pilot and/or field scale technology consistent with AF, regulatory, and ITRC guidance. The Contractor shall determine performance monitoring criteria and identify a control sub-site (current state) for comparison and to evaluate results.

In some instances, achievement of RC may not be feasible with currently available technologies within a reasonable timeframe. If this is the case, the Contractor shall develop and evaluate alternatives for site management that will be protective of human health and the environment. If this recommendation is made, it must include the rationale, recommended target when active remediation can cease, and a strategy for obtaining regulatory approval.

1.2.7.2.1 Cost/Benefit Analysis

The Contractor shall provide a cost/benefit analysis for proposed alternatives. Alternatives may include optimizing the remedy in the DD or other remedies with the potential for better performance. All alternatives identified shall be evaluated against one another to determine which alternative can achieve RC in the shortest time and has the lowest overall LCC. The cost/benefit analysis shall include:

• A focused analysis of alternative approaches, to include conceptual designs and engineering cost estimates. The analysis shall identify the total cost of executing the optimized remedy (including the plan and reports).

• An estimate of the reduction of LCC of each alternative evaluated.

• Any risk inherent in implementing the alternative optimized remedy.

• A summary comparison of the LCC and risk of each alternative in a cost/benefit analysis that clearly states the recommended alternative.

1.2.7.3 Decision Document Amendment

Based on the results of the remedy evaluation and recommendation, it may be necessary to amend the DD to augment, modify, and/or replace the existing remedy. If warranted, the Contractor shall update the DD.

8 ITRC. (2010). Use and Measurement of Mass Flux and Mass Discharge9 ITRC. (2004). Remediation Process Optimization: Identifying Opportunities for Enhanced and More Efficient Site Remediation.

1.3 Performance Requirements

1.3.1 Table 1: Performance Table

Table 1 presents the POs, PPs, and Performance Standards associated with all installations/sites under this ORC. The PP specified in Table 1 starts from the Obligation Date of the first Sub- Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) for the site unless otherwise specified. All approvals (both Government and regulator) per the Performance Standard are required in writing. Additional scope discussion and limits can be found in Section 1.3.2.

Table 1: Performance Table

Site Performance Objective Performance Period Performance Standard N/A Project Management Plan (PMP):

1) Draft PMP

2) Final PMP

3) Updates as necessary

Draft PMP within 60 calendar days from contract award, Final PMP within 14 calendar days of receipt of AF comments on the draft and update as necessary throughout the POP.

The AF will determine when whole document PMP updates are warranted

AF approval of PMP.

The PMP should be maintained with accuracy and completeness based on the current technical approach for each site, management structure, etc.

N/A Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)/Milestone Payment Schedule (MPS)

Draft IMS/MPS within 60 calendar days from contract award, Final IMS/MPS within 14 calendar days of receipt of AF comments on the draft, and updates bi-monthly throughout the

POP

AF approval of IMS/MPS.

N/A Basewide Quality Program Plans (QPP) for IRP sites at each Installation

Draft Basewide QPP within 60 calendar days from contract award and update as necessary throughout the POP

AF and regulatory approval of Basewide QPP.

N/A Land Use Control Implementation Plan

(LUCIP)

One (1) year AF approval of LUCIP.

Site Performance Objective Performance Period Performance Standard All Open Sites (IRP, MMRP, PFAS, etc.)

Community Involvement Plan (CIP) and updates are required prior to the RI phase, after the DD/ROD is signed, and every five

(5) years thereafter for each Installation and associated Geographically Separate Units (GSUs), per Enclosure 4.

Draft CIP or Update within 180 calendar days from Sub-CLIN award; Draft Final CIP or Update within 14 calendar days of receipt of AF comments on the draft; Final CIP or Update within 14 calendar days of approval by the AF.

AF approval of CIP.

Columbus AFB

SS028,

SS032

1,4-Dioxane Step 1 Five (5) years AF and regulatory approval of Tech Memo/Report

SS028,

SS032

1,4-Dioxane Step 2 Five (5) years AF and regulatory approval of Tech Memo/Report

LF005 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

LF006 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

LF007 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

LF009 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

LF010 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

LF012 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

OD033 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

SS028 Alternate Objectives:

1) Advanced Site Characterization (Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI), Revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM), and Recommended Monitoring Program Update)

2) Remedy Evaluation and Recommendation (including results of any pilot study)

3) Decision Document Amendment

Ten (10) years AF and regulatory approval of SSI Report, revised CSM and Base-wide Monitoring Plan.

AF approval of the remedy evaluation and recommended proposed remedial strategy including successful demonstration of the existing or alternate remedy (e.g., through pilot or field test) showing decreasing trends in COCs.

AF and regulatory approval of ESD or ROD Amendment (i.e., Air Force and regulatory signatures on Final ESD or ROD Amendment).

SS028 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

SS032 Alternate Objectives:

1) Advanced Site Characterization

(Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI), Revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM), and Recommended Monitoring Program Update)

2) Remedy Evaluation and Recommendation (including results of any pilot study)

3) Decision Document Amendment

Ten (10) years AF and regulatory approval of SSI Report, revised CSM and Base-wide Monitoring Plan.

AF approval of the remedy evaluation and recommended proposed remedial strategy including successful demonstration of the existing or alternate remedy (e.g., through pilot or field test) showing decreasing trends in COCs.

AF and regulatory approval of ESD or ROD Amendment (i.e., Air Force and regulatory signatures on Final ESD or ROD Amendment).

SS032 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control

Keesler AFB

LF002 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

LF003 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

LF004

Aka LF001

LTM in accordance with the approved DD and Reduce LCC

Through the duration of the POP

AF, and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports, Reduce LLC Summary Report, etc.).

SS025 Response Complete (RC)

Upon achievement of RC, continue Long Term Management (LTM) in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

Ten (10) years AF and regulatory approval of RC documentation (e.g., Regulator approval of, and Air Force signature on, Final Remedial Action Completion Report).

AF approval of Performance Model Evaluation Report during RA-O.

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

ST006 Site Closeout Five (5) years AF and regulatory approval of SC documentation (e.g., Site Closeout Report and Well Abandonment Confirmation Report).

ST007 Alternate Objectives:

1) Advanced Site Characterization (Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI), Revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM), and Recommended Monitoring Program Update)

2) Remedy Evaluation and Recommendation (including results of any pilot study)

3) Decision Document Amendment

Ten (10) years AF and regulatory approval of SSI Report, revised CSM and Base-wide Monitoring Plan.

AF approval of the remedy evaluation and recommended proposed remedial strategy including successful demonstration of the existing or alternate remedy (e.g., through pilot or field test) showing decreasing trends in COCs.

AF and regulatory approval of ESD or ROD Amendment (i.e., Air Force and regulatory signatures on Final ESD or ROD Amendment).

ST007 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

ST008 Alternate Objectives:

1) Advanced Site Characterization

(Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI), Revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM), and Recommended Monitoring Program Update)

2) Remedy Evaluation and Recommendation (including results of any pilot study)

3) Decision Document Amendment

Ten (10) years AF and regulatory approval of SSI Report, revised CSM and Base-wide Monitoring Plan.

AF approval of the remedy evaluation and recommended proposed remedial strategy including successful demonstration of the existing or alternate remedy (e.g., through pilot or field test) showing decreasing trends in COCs.

AF and regulatory approval of ESD or ROD Amendment (i.e., Air Force and regulatory signatures on Final ESD or ROD Amendment).

ST008 LTM in accordance with the approved

ROD/DD

Through the duration of the POP

AF and regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control

POL Yard

(DLA)

Statement of Basis (SoB) and Permit Modification

Ten (10) years AF and regulatory approval of SoB (i.e., Air Force and regulatory signatures on Final SoB).

1.3.2 Additional Scope Discussion and Limits

In addition to the requirements identified in Table 1, the Contractor shall be responsible for:

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of all remediation equipment to include all wells associated with requirements in this PWS and well abandonment with AF, and regulatory approval (if required) when the well is no longer necessary.

I. Keeping systems operating as intended throughout the contract POP. If a system becomes non-operational, the Contractor shall submit, in writing, the plan to get the system operating again to the Installation POC within 10 days. The plan shall include the timeline for repairs.

Establishing a quality control/quality assurance process to ensure documents are of an acceptable quality and do not contain typos, formatting issues, contradictory information in tables and text, etc.

Contaminants for which there are promulgated federal, state, or local standards.

AFCEC may determine that clean-up needs to be accomplished at a particular site where

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is present if there is a promulgated State Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) that is approved for use by the Department of Defense (DoD) as an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) standard. These determinations may result in additional sites or additional work related to existing sites being added to the contract via modification.

Conducting 1,4-Dioxane investigations as described in “Interim Air Force Guidance on Sampling and Response Actions for 1,4-Dioxane at Operational and [Base Realignment and Closure] BRAC Installations,” dated 24 May 2013. The Contractor shall present results in one Tech Memo/Report per installation documenting the analytical methods and maps depicting sampling locations within the trichloroethene (TCE) plume and sample analysis results.

Management and disposal of investigated-derived waste (IDW) media associated with PFAS in accordance with the AF Guidance Memorandum “Updated Interim Guidance on Destruction or Disposal of Materials Containing Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the United States” dated 20 February 2026 (or the most recent and applicable ASD or SAF/IEE guidance on PFAS destruction or disposal of Materials containing PFAS), and Section 4.14.2 of this document. The following sites are validated PFAS sites; therefore, the Contractor shall test waste media for PFAS and dispose of it in accordance with the guidance.

No applicable sites under this ORC.

The Contractor shall test IDW for PFAS using EPA test method 1633 as required for waste acceptance. This includes, but is not limited to sites:

I. Columbus AFB: LF009, LF010, and SS028 II. Keesler AFB: LF002 and LF003

For wastewater treatment sites that may be retrofitted for PFAS during the ORC POP by a non-ORC contractor, ongoing O&M activities—such as filter changeouts and the collection of influent, mid, and effluent samples for evaluation—may be added to the ORC contract via modification.

Ensuring that remedial actions do not negatively impact the distribution of any other contaminants and/or emerging contaminants (e.g., PFAS, 1,4-dioxane).

Conducting Technical Review Committee (TRC) assessments and meetings; performing community outreach activities; and preparing CIPs or Updates as described in sections 4.6.1, 4.6.2, and Enclosure 4.

Conducting inspections, maintenance, and replacement of signage as necessary as part of the annual land use control (LUC) inspections at both installations.

Removal of all Contractor owned materials from Columbus AFB and Keesler AFB at the end of the contract POP.

Preparing all documents in accordance with AFH 33-337 (Tongue & Quill).

Semiannual vegetation control as part of LTM activities at all Columbus AFB landfill sites (LF005, LF006, LF007, LF009, LF010, and LF012) and site OD033.

Disposing of existing on-site materials including: 2 large poly tanks, 8 drums of Neutral

Zone, and 2 drums of existing IDW at Columbus AFB.

Submitting the RCRA Permit Renewal Application one (1) year prior to the permit expiration date of 27 November 2027 at Keesler AFB.

Removing all trees impacting the landfill cap at sites LF002 and LF003, at Keesler AFB, including stump grinding, spraying for tree shoots, and sodding and seeding to match the surrounding area.

Quarterly vegetation control at the monitoring wells for sites LF002 and LF003 at Keesler AFB as part of LTM activities.

Conducting soil investigation at site ST006 at Keesler AFB in support of site closeout.

The Contractor shall be responsible for the following associated with the Basewide

Groundwater Monitoring Program at Columbus AFB and Keesler AFB.

Complete and update comprehensive monitoring well inventory, and a comprehensive monitoring well condition assessment. Well conditions (e.g., vault box, concrete pad, well casing) shall be evaluated at each sample event. Redevelop/replace wells to maintain the well inventory identified in the LTM Plan as submitted to regulator.

The Contractor shall NOT be responsible for:

Reasonably unanticipated contaminants at sites identified in Table 1 (e.g., previously undetected mercury within a TCE plume); however, Contractors would be responsible for reasonably anticipated contaminants (e.g., vinyl chloride in a TCE plume).

Remediation or treatment of contaminants for which there are no promulgated federal, state, or local standards or AF agreements at time of contract award unless included via modification.

Official regulatory changes occurring after contract award, as documented in Administrative Code, laws, and regulations, e.g., decrease in residential Soil Cleanup Target Levels, Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels, etc.

Sites not identified in Table 1.

Sites containing radiological waste.

Remediation of sites with unexploded ordnance (UXO), Discarded Military Munitions

(DMMs), munitions constituents (MCs) present in high enough concentrations to pose an explosive hazard, and chemical warfare material (CWM).

2.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

The Contractor shall identify and comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes;

Department of Defense (DoD) and DAFI instructions, manuals, handbooks, regulations, guidance, and policy letters (including DAFI policy and guidance for IRP and Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP); Executive Orders (EOs), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Petroleum Institute (API) Codes, National Association of Corrosions Engineers (NACE), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Steel Structures and Painting Counsel (SSPC), National Electrical Code (NEC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and International Building Code (IBC) including all changes and amendments in effect on the date of issuance of this contract. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to identify and comply with all applicable requirements. In addition, the Contractor shall refer to the current versions of the DoD Policy and Guidelines for Acquisitions Involving Environmental Sampling or Testing and The United States AF Construction Management Implementation Guide.

The Contractor shall identify and comply with all applicable documents for the Installations including RODs, ROD Amendments, ESDs, RCRA Permits and subsequent modifications, Risk Evaluation Corrective Action Program (RECAP) documents, the Endangered Species Act, other Decision Documents, Deeds, waste management guidance, and conveyance notices.

The information provided in this PWS is not intended as a substitute for complete analysis of technical data available, nor is it intended to be a guide on how the Contractor should address achievement of the POs.

3.0 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION AND PROPERTY

Government Furnished Information is contained in the Administrative Record (https://ar.cce.af.mil/) or listed in Enclosure 2. The documentation provided represents the complete documentation available for the Installation(s) and sites identified in this PWS. The

Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their own independent, professional conclusions/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract.

The Contractor is responsible for providing all other supplies and equipment, not already installed, and not listed in Enclosure 3, that are required to achieve the POs of this contract. All AF-owned property, including real property used for remediation purposes must be maintained by the Contractor in accordance with applicable maintenance requirements and usability for the intended purpose. The Contractor is responsible for disposal of unneeded, unusable, or obsolete GFP as required, and transfer of remaining GFP to the Government at the end of the contract POP. Prior to disposal of excess or unserviceable equipment listed in Enclosure 3, the Contractor shall coordinate activities with the Contracting Officer (CO) for disposition instructions.

4.0 MANAGEMENT, PLANNING, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall implement a full range of environmental remediation activities as required to meet objectives of this contract and in accordance with all applicable or relevant and appropriate federal, state, and local laws and regulations; DoD policies; and Installation-specific orders, agreements, or rules. The Contractor shall supply all labor, equipment, and materials necessary to accomplish the work through the entire POP of the contract. The Contractor shall perform management and planning functions, including performance measurement and fund status reporting.

The PMP, IMS, and MPS documents shall be fully integrated and consistent. Consistency shall be maintained throughout the POP by fully implementing programmatic change control processes compliant with PMP guidance. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to clearly demonstrate an applied understanding and compliance with ORC requirements, application of guidance/requirements, and consistency between the PMP, IMS, and MPS. The Contractor shall create a single file for the IMS and MPS files and deliver them as separate files as required.

4.1 Project Management Plan

The Contractor shall develop and maintain a detailed PMP. The PMP shall specify the project’s resources and tasks corresponding to the Sub-CLINs for this contract as required for the planning, execution, control, and completion of the stated POs. At a minimum, the PMP shall include the following sections: technical approach for achieving the POs in accordance with the PWS, management approach including sub-contractor management, organization and integration of the project team, schedule management, project controls, transitional activities, risk management, quality management, health and safety management, procurement management, security management, and communications plans. The Contractor is responsible for complying with the “Optimized Remediation Contract (ORC) Program Management Plan (PMP) Guidance” latest version, as well as standard industry practice. Clarification on PMP content and the level of detail required to address the ORC program shall be provided by the COR.

The PMP shall demonstrate a comprehensive decomposition of each work package/PO deliverable and exhibit a clear and concise correlation between the PWS, IMS, and MPS. The Contractor is responsible for complying with the guidance for the Development of Contract Line

Item Number Structures, Integrated Master Schedules, and Milestone Payment Schedules (CLIN, IMS, and MPS Guidance) per the latest version of the ORC PMP Guidance.

The first draft of the PMP shall be due within sixty (60) calendar days of contract award. The Draft PMP and subsequent revisions shall be subject to AF review and approval. The Final PMP shall be due within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of AF comments on the Draft versions.

The Contractor shall maintain the PMP throughout the duration of the contract utilizing dated page changes and track change deletions and insertions (electronic copies) as practicable. Whole document PMP updates during the life of the ORC may be necessary based on the accumulation of small incremental changes or significant changes (e.g., contract requirements, technical approaches, risk and issue management, or key personnel). The Contractor shall prepare two whole document updates during the POP of the ORC. The AF will determine when PMP updates are warranted.

4.2 Schedule and Planning Requirements – Integrated Master Schedule The Contractor shall prepare and submit an IMS in hardcopy and in electronic format (Microsoft Project, Adobe Acrobat portable document file (.pdf), and Microsoft Excel). The IMS will be finalized during development of the PMP and the Contractor shall update bi-monthly.

The following are minimum AF requirements for the IMS:

• Presents a realistic sequence and timing of all activities and documents necessary to demonstrate achievement of the PO within the PP. The IMS shall demonstrate full compliance with the PWS, including achieving POs within the required PP.

• Utilizes a realistic calendar (i.e., work week of five eight-hour days, no submittals on Federal holidays, etc.), appropriate logic ties, clearly defined constraints, and identifies key points where risk mitigation/contingency actions may need to be taken.

• Includes the following columns in the exact order as shown below:

o Installation Name: Identify Enterprise Environmental, Safety, and Occupational

Health Management Information System (EESOH-MIS) Installation Name per Table 1. The Installation name must be included in every line of every Sub-CLIN.

o Site Number: Identify EESOH-MIS Site ID per Table 1 and Site Alias, if applicable. The EESOH-MIS Site ID must be included on every line of the IMS where applicable.

o CLIN/Sub-CLIN: Identify CLIN and/or Sub-CLIN per Section B of the contract.

The CLIN and/or Sub-CLIN must be included on every line of the IMS.

Note: Sub-CLINs for compliance activities (routine regulatory requirements to comply with binding agreements) are denoted as ####CX and Sub-CLINs for performance activities (remedial advancement or progress towards the PO) are denoted as ####AX.