N4425519R6006_N4425519R6006_Amendment_0007.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Amendment is issued to f inalize the follow ing:

PPI Round 1_rev.1 PPI Round 2_rev.1 Attachment J.B-1_BidSked_rev.3 Attachment J.C-1_PWS_rev.2

And add the follow ing:

PPI Round 2 Clarif ications

POC - Cari Burnham, cari.burnham@navy.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 19

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-May-2019

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N4425519R6006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Feb-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

02-May-2019

CODE

NAVFAC NORTHWEST

1101 TAUTOG CIRCLE

SILVERDALE WA 98315-1101

N44255 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4425519R6006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been added by full text:

DOCUMENTS ADDED

Attachment J.B-1_BidSked_rev.3 Attachment J.C-1_PWS_rev.2

PPI ROUND 1 REV.1

DRAFT RESPONSES ISSUED IN AMENDMENT 0005 ARE REPLACED IN FULL BY THIS

AMENDMENT.

PPI-Clarification #1

PWS “Attachment J.B_1_Subline Items for laboratory analysis” and PPI#39 Response follow on question - Long Term monitoring projects typically do not require fast laboratory results as opposed to remediation projects. Historically, the analytical support for this contract has provided 15 to 20 BD TAT laboratory data packages. Will this TAT continue to be acceptable?

Response: As amended in J.B-1, the note proceeding the series 130 & 140 SLINs states:

To extract, analyze, and report test method results. Price includes standard turnaround time of 15 business days, laboratory QC samples, EPA Level 4 data packages, and appropriate data validation per SOPs. ***FOR PURPOSES

OF PROPOSAL EVALUATION, THE TOTAL EXTENDED PRICE WILL BE CALCULATED AS INDICATED

IN THE EXTENDED PRICE FORMULA. ACTUAL ORDERS MAY VARY (1 Sample = 1 Each).

Change response of PPI 39 from 10 working days to 15 business days provided all holding times are not exceeded as the standard turnaround time.

PPI-Clarification #2

Pursuant to your reference to FAR 52.219-14 – Limitations on Subcontracting--Please clarify:

1. Do simple "Teaming Agreements" constitutes a "merger arrangement" of several firms when (a) no acquisition merger is involved among firms; (2) none is a newly formed subdivision of a parent company; (c) none involve a new joint venture.

2. Being independent firms, each will have different CAGE codes and D&B numbers.

3. Are explanations as described below applicable to said "Teaming Agreements".

"This explanation may be required if the offeror is a newly formed subdivision of a parent company, is a new joint venture or other merger arrangement of several firms, or is a new firm formed by executives from other firm(s), and the offeror provides experience, past performance, and/or safety data from any of the parent/partner/subdivision/originating firm(s) with a different CAGE code and DUNS number, the offeror's proposal MUST clearly demonstrate:

-how the same policies, procedures, processes, management, and similar systems will be used in the newly formed offeror's firm and -delineate why there is an expectation that the same high quality of experience, past performance, and/or safety will be achieved by the offeror in performance of the requirements of this contract.

- The proposal must clearly show how experience from any entity other than the offeror is relevant to the offer's ability to perform. The relevant considerations are whether the resources of the parent/partner/subdivision/originating firm(s) will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the other firm(s) will have meaningful involvement in contract performance."

Response:

1a – yes.

1b – yes.

1c – yes.

2. Yes, each will have different CAGE codes and D&B numbers.

PPI-Clarification #3

RFP (Page 56), SECTION 4 – VETS 4212 Report Confirmation of Filing in Section M: Is a VETS 4212-My Reports records overview from the VETS 4212-DOL website acceptable as proof of reporting in place of a confirmation email of receipt notification?

Response: No. Follow instructions in the solicitation.

PPI-Clarification #4

PPI #98: Please consider further extending the due date to 30 days after the last reference files are provided by AMRDEC, as we weren’t expecting the extended delay in the receipt of these files following the original solicitation. This will allow the bidders the time needed to sufficiently review the reference files to complete our Price Proposals.

Response: The solicitation due date is extended until 14 May 2019, 4:00 PM PDT.

PPI-Clarification #5

Reference PPI# 104 - PPI #104 response indicates that subcontractor experience is acceptable if it meets the RFP requirements as stated in the RFP, page 59, b) Non-cost/price Factors: Note 1, including completion of Box 8 of the experience data sheet. Please clarify that this response referencing pg 59 Note 1 intends to allow past experience from an offeror's teaming subcontractor with a relationship formalized by an established teaming agreement. Will NAVFAC’s evaluation of relevant considerations include team subcontractors with a formal teaming agreement where the team subcontractor will be relied upon for contract performance in addition to parent/partner/subdivision/originating firms per Note 1?

Response: Yes.

PPI-Clarification #6

PPI - #119 Reference RFP, page 48 Section L.1 Submission of Pre-Proposal Inquiries - Will NAVFAC NW extend the pre- proposal inquiry period to five business days after contractors receive the sensitive unclassified documents to allow time for clarifying questions that may arise from the review of those documents?

Response: The pre-proposal inquiry period will not be extended.

Clarification question: The Navy has not provided responses to some of the PPI’s. Is it the Navy’s intent to do so?

Response: Yes. See PPI Round 2.

PPI-Clarification #7

Attachment J.B-1, Sub_Line_Item_Numbers_(SLINs)_Bid_Schedule, SLINs 240AA though 240 AL. Is it the Navy’s intent to typically award the SLINs 240AA through AJ as single PWS Turnkey task orders but that the Keyport and Pont McIntyre Weather Day SLINs AK through AL will be awarded to fulfill a portion of a task order scope larger than their respective SLIN descriptions?

Response: All SLINs can be awarded independently or in combination with other SLINs. Individual task order scopes will determine if individual SLINs or combinations of SLINs will be awarded.

Clarification question: Should Keyport turnkey SLINs each include costs for independent plans including APP/SSHPs Work, QC, and EPP?

Response: If plans are not specified in the description of the SLIN, then they are not to be included and will be developed as needed utilizing other SLINs.

PPI-Clarification #8

PPI - #20Attachment_J.C-1, Performance_Work_Statement, Paragraph C1.2.2 Operations and Maintenance, Item b, page 8 of 32. Item b states “the Contractor shall maintain equipment and facilities used for long-term monitoring including roads, wells and associated structures and equipment.” Should the offeror include maintenance costs in the turnkey SLINs 240AA-Al for all equipment and facilities even if it is not specifically described in the respective PWS Attachments of SLIN description? For example, does the Navy intend for the Contractor to maintain all Navy facility roads at Bangor, Whidbey, Bremerton, Adak, Indian Island, Keyport, Jackson Park, and Point McIntyre?

Response: The Navy maintains Navy facility roads at Bangor, Whidbey, Bremerton, Indian Island, Keyport, and Jackson Park. Adak, Barrow and Point McIntyre are not Navy facilities.

Maintenance that is not addressed in the PWS Attachments including references or SLINs is subject to SLIN 400AA subject to PWS Attachment J.C-1 para 1.2.2 and subparts.

Clarification question:

1. Will the Navy revise PWS Attachment J.C-1 to reflect this change?

2. Will the $5,000 FFP liability limit be applied to Non-Pre-Priced maintenance work? For example, will the contractor be reimbursed for Non-Pre-Priced repairs to wells not covered by other SLINs, such as monument repair, lid and seal replacement, repairing stripped lid bolts, etc. or should these costs be included in other SLIN prices such as sampling SLINs?

Response:

1. No. The government does not see this clarification as a change. Roads used solely for long-term monitoring are typically not facility roads. Facility roads are maintained by the facility.

2. Application of the $5,000 FFP liability is on a case by case basis. For example, if a piece of equipment that is to be maintained under a 240 SLIN requires repair that exceeds $5,000 and a 400 series SLIN is awarded to execute that repair, the $5,000 FFP liability would apply. The offeror's task order proposal would have to demonstrate how the $5,000 is applied in their proposal.

PPI-Clarification #9

PPI - #30 Attachments J.B-1, SLINs A210 AA AND AC. Cost for mobilizing heavy equipment is typically expensive. Does the Navy intend to pay costs for mobilization of heavy equipment in every case or only use these SLINs when heavy equipment is required?

Response: Only use SLINs when heavy equipment is required. Refer to PWS J.C-1 Section C7.1 regarding costs when heavy equipment is not involved.

Clarification question: PWS J.C-1 Section C7.1 discusses travel costs only. For the current contract, travel has been defined as a subset of mobilization that has also included “All mobilization/demobilization, coordination, facility access, shipping (excluding sample shipping), facility IDW planning, any excavation permitting, any special inspections.” Is it the Navy’s intent that costs for these items that are now not included in the SLIN descriptions for 210AA and 210AB will be considered Non-Pre-Priced work and reimbursed to the Contractor through negotiation and award?

Response: No. Costs for coordination, facility access, shipping (excluding sample shipping), facility IDW planning, excavation permitting, special inspections should be considered functions of Project Management and included in the respective SLINs per Basic SLIN Note 1. The offeror will not be paid separately for these items. Mobilization SLINs 210AA and 210 AB are utilized only when mobilizing heavy equipment per J.C-1 Section C4.9.2.

PPI-Clarification #10

PPI - #31 Attachment J.B-1, SLINs A210 AA AND AC. Please define what heavy equipment will be mobilized.

Does this include drill rigs?

Response: Drill rigs would be addressed under the 330 series SLINs. Heavy equipment is excavators, cranes, bulldozers and similar sized equipment. Compact or mini excavators trailerable by a heavy duty pick-up do not apply.

Clarification question: Will the Navy revise PWS Attachment J.C-1 to reflect this change?

Response: This response complies with Section C4.9.2. of PWS Attachment J.C-1. All amendments are incorporated into the contract requirements.

PPI-Clarification #11

PPI - #33

Attachment J.B-1, SLINs 210 AA TO AC and SLIN 210 AC Field event preparation. Please explain the Navy’s intent on how these SLINs will be applied and how may they not be applied. Specifically, is it the Navy’s intent to award to 1 each for each field event within a task order and should all costs for mobilization/demobilization and field even preparations be covered by these two SLINs?

Response: Mobilization cost are only incurred when heavy equipment is involved. Requirements of J.C-1 Section C7.1 apply. Refer to amended J.B-1.

Clarification question: The SLIN description for 210AC- Mobilization/Demobilization – Adak, AK also includes the following language that differs from 210AA and AB: “All mobilization/demobilization, coordination, facility access, shipping (excluding sample shipping), facility IDW planning, any excavation permitting, any special inspections.” Is it the Navy’s intent that costs for these items be included when mobilizing to Adak but not for Puget Sound and Whidbey Island? If not, will the Navy revise Attachment J.B-1 to reflect this change?

Response: Response to PPI-Clarification #9 applies. Recognizing the difference in preparation required for mobilizing to Adak versus any Puget Sound destination, it is the Navy’s intent that costs for these items be included when mobilizing to Adak but not for Puget Sound and Whidbey Island. The SLIN description for 210AC – Mobilization/Demobilization – Adak, AK applies to mobilization/demobilization of additional task orders not addressed in the 240 series SLINs only. Costs for mobilization/demobilization of SLIN 240 AD and SLIN 240 AE are included in the SLINs, respectively.

PPI-Clarification #12

PPI - #37 Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN Note SLIN Description, row 3. The SLIN description states that costs should include both management and disposal if IDW. Costs for disposal of hazardous wastes are highly variable and depend greatly on the contaminant, concentration, matrix, and volume. Does this include all potential waste generated from a site including monitoring well purge water, drilling muds, waste oil/product, etc. and should the Offeror assume that wastes will be hazardous or non-hazardous?

Response: Yes, all waste is included as is all recyclables. Offeror to follow local base instructions for waste designation. Drilling muds as well as sampling and well development and purge waters are typically non-hazardous.

Non- contaminated waste oil is a recyclable. Carbon and other treatment plant media may be hazardous and if it is regenerated should be considered a recyclable. Per J.C-1 Section C9.0e (as amended), for all non-240 series SLINs if IDW is generated it shall be characterized and priced assuming it to be non-hazardous waste for disposal. If IDW is determined to be hazardous, disposal shall be addressed as non-pre-priced, SLIN 400AA.

Clarification question:

1. Please confirm that costs for disposal and/or recycling of spent carbon generated at Bangor Sites A and F will continue to be borne by the Contractor.

2. Please confirm that costs for disposal of both hazardous and non-hazardous waste generated at Whidbey sites will continue to be borne by the Contractor.

3. If hazardous IDW is generated at sites not located on active Navy installations, will disposal costs for these wastes be the responsibility of the Contractor?

4. Will costs for IDW generated by Non-Pre-Priced work be the responsibility of the Contractor?

Response: Refer to J.C-1 Section C9.0e (as amended)

1. Contractor is responsible disposal or recycling of spent carbon at Bangor Sites A and F.

2. Contractor is responsible for disposal costs associated with both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes generated by the contractor at NASWI.

3. Yes. Contractor is responsible for disposal costs associated with hazardous IDW generated at sites not located on active Navy installations per J.C-1 Section C9.0e.

4. Costs for IDW generated by Non-Pre-Priced work shall depend on the scope of the Non-Pre-Priced work.

PPI-Clarification #13

PPI - #59 N4425519R6006_Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Attachment E O&M Sites A and F Groundwater Treatment Systems, Bangor. For O&M at Bangor Sites A and F, what is the response time requirement for responding to plant failures and problems alarms?

Response: 2 hours

Clarification question: The PPI and Navy’s response to #59 is an exact duplicate of PPI #58. It appears this is a cut and paste error that inadvertently omitted SES Question #51: “N4425519R6006_Attachment_J.C- 1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Attachment E O&M Sites A and F Groundwater Treatment Systems, Bangor. For O&M at Bangor Sites A and F, what has been the history of plant failures, problems, and alarms in the past year?”

Will the Navy provide an answer for this question?

Response: While not an indication of future reliability; Site A experience no breakdowns in the past year. Site F had one breakdown. As the plant operator, the Offeror is responsible for responding to all treatment plant failures, problems, and alarms, regardless of number. Quality preventive maintenance should minimize the amount of treatment plant failures, problems, and alarms.

PPI-Clarification #14

PPI - #86 N4425519R6006_Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Attachment K NBK Bremerton LTM, Subtask 2.1 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) & Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), page 3, second paragraph. Should the Offeror anticipate any review of the QAPP/SAP by EPA, Ecology or tribes?

Response: There are no required trainings specific for low-level mercury groundwater sampling; however, the Offeror shall follow Field Procedure #9. Refer to references 4 and 7 in PWS Attachment K.

Clarification question: PPI #86 is an exact duplicate of PPI #85 although the Navy answer is different. It appears this is a cut and paste error that inadvertently omitted SES Question #78: “N4425519R6006_Attachment_J.C- 1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Attachment K NBK Bremerton LTM, Task 3.2, Page 5. What are the training requirements for completing low-level mercury sampling or additional preparation necessary prior to sampling?”

Please confirm that the Navy’s response is related to the omitted question.

Response: There is no required training specific for low-level mercury groundwater sampling; however, the Offeror shall follow Field Procedure #9. Refer to references 4 and 7 in PWS Attachment K. For more information, see Guidance for Implementation and Use of EPA Method 1631 for the Determination of Low-Level Mercury (40 CFR part 136).

PPI-Clarification #15

PPI - #111 1. Could NAVFAC please provide clarification on what “continuous” pertains to on the NAVFAC NW Drilling Cost Rate Sheet? Please clarify if this relates to the well screen per well, in addition please clarify the material of the well screen, PVC or Stainless continuous wire wrapped…

Response: 1. Continuous relates to well screen per well. Well material shall be PVC or Stainless continuous wire wrapped based on compatibility with analytes being sampled.

Clarification question: 1. Response No. 1 defining “continuous” appears to be in error. We held the understanding that the drilling SLINs applied the convention of “Well Depth/Sampling Interval/Well Diameter/Well Screen Length” such that, for example, SLIN A270AB 0-20 feet/continuous/2"/5' would mean the following:

- Well ranging in depth from 0 to 20 feet deep

- Continuous sampling for logging interval not analytical (rather than every 5 feet)

- 2-inch diameter well casing

- 5-foot screen length Please confirm if this interpretation is correct.

2. Please define the unit “LS” for SLINs 300AA and AB. Is this supposed to be “LF”?

Response:

1. Confirmed. Interpretation is correct.

2. LS is correct and is intended for lump sum. For SLINs 300 AA and 300AB LS indicates all costs to include: labor, material, equipment, PPE, waste disposal, bailer/pumps, project management and all other work to install the well with the exception of well monument installation.

PPI-Clarification #16 - RFP Section G.4 NON PRE-PRICED PROPOSALS, Section B, Page 13 states: "When submitting proposals, the Contractor shall use Attachment J.G-1, Proposal Template." Please confirm that Attachment J.G-1 is only required for non-pre-priced proposals after IDIQ contract award.

Response: Yes.

PPI - #31 Attachment J.B-1, SLINs A210 AA AND AC. Please define what heavy equipment will be mobilized.

Does this include drill rigs?

Response: Per J.B-1, drill rigs would be addressed under the 330 series SLINs. Heavy equipment is discussed in J.C- 1 Section C4.9.2.

Clarification question: Will the Navy revise PWS Attachment J.C-1 to reflect this change?

Response: Refer to J.C-1 Section C4.9.2.

PPI ROUND 2 CLARIFICATIONS

PPI-Clarification #17

Attachment J.B-1, Introductory notes for SLINs 270 through 370 for well installation/development/decommissioning.

"Work includes handling, management, and disposal of investigation derived wastes (per all applicable Federal, State, Local, and Navy regulations and guidance for the site)." Personnel shall "... be trained per 29 CFR 1910.120..."

Regarding Investigation Derived Waste (IDW) management, may this be assumed to include only on-site containerizing and securing of IDW, or does this include off–site treatment and/or disposal? If the latter, a) should IDW be assumed contaminated, b) if contaminated, should IDW be assumed to be nonhazardous, c) does IDW handling include off-site disposal costs, and d) If off-site disposal is included, which potential contaminants should be assumed?

Response: This applies to on-site waste containment and securement.

Clarification: Please answer the same question regarding IDW disposal.

Response: Response: For SLIN series 270, 280 and 290, IDW shall be addressed according to Installation Requirements: IDW not treatable at the on-site treatment plant handling includes off-site disposal costs, this does include off–site treatment and/or disposal: a) assume IDW is contaminated, b) assume non-hazardous, c) IDW handling does include off-site disposal costs, and d) refer to PWS Attachments and references associated with SLINS 240 AA, AB, AC, AH, AI, AJ and AK for identification of known potential contaminants. If other contaminants are encountered, they will be containerized and labeled. In those situations, disposal shall be addressed as a non-pre-priced 400 series SLIN.

For SLIN series 300, 310 and 320, IDW: This does include off–site treatment and/or disposal: a) assume IDW is contaminated, b) assume non-hazardous, c) IDW handling does include off-site disposal costs, and d) refer to PWS Attachments and references associated with SLINS 240 AD, AE, AF and AG for identification of known potential contaminants. If other contaminants are encountered, they will be containerized and labeled. In those situations, disposal shall be addressed as a non-pre-priced 400 series SLIN.

PPI-Clarification #18

PPI - #31 Attachment J.B-1, SLINs A210 AA AND AC. Please define what heavy equipment will be mobilized.

Does this include drill rigs? Response: Drill rigs would be addressed under the 330 series SLINs. Heavy equipment is excavators, cranes, bulldozers and similar sized equipment. Compact or mini excavators trailerable by a heavy duty pick-up do not apply.

Clarification question: Will the Navy revise PWS Attachment J.C-1 to reflect this change?

Response: This response complies with Section C4.9.2. of PWS Attachment J.C-1. All amendments are incorporated into the contract requirements.

Clarification question:

a. Would well rig equipment is needed that does not fall under the definition of the drilling SLIN mobilizations 330 SLINs (for well installation or decommissioning by over drilling) and is non-trailerable, such as truck mounted pump removal equipment, will be considered “heavy equipment” and the 210 series then apply? For example, Bangor site wells are equipped with large extraction pumps that will required removal using a well rig prior to well redevelopment. Which mobilization SLIN if any would apply to the rig mobilization costs?

b. Which mobilization SLIN, if any, would apply to well rig equipment that is small enough to be trailerable using a heavy-duty pickup truck and is used for well decommissioning? For example, if the Contractor uses a small trailerable, Geoprobe-sized rig for decommissioning wells on Adak, would mobilization costs be reimbursed through SLIN 210AC, SLIN 330AB, or negotiated and awarded and non-Prepriced work?

Response:

a. Series 330 SLINS are applicable when the drill rig being mobilized is comparable to a drill rig used to install or decommission a well by overdrilling. For any rig that is less than that, series 330 SLINs do not apply. If the government concurs, a series SLIN 400AA non-pre-priced task order would apply.

b. Equipment that is transported by pickup truck is not considered heavy equipment and as such neither SLIN 210AC or 330AB would apply. Equipment that is being transported as air cargo shall be considered as series SLIN 400AA non-pre-priced work.

PPI-Clarification #19

Amendment 05 clarification:

The solicitation requires that all amendments be listed and dated in SF-33 under Item 14. There are now five amendments and only space for four amendments on SF-33. Is it acceptable to only list the first four amendments on SF-33? If not, please provide direction on how to proceed.

Response: Add a continuation page, list the amendments, and place this sheet directly behind the first page of the solicitation.

PPI-Clarification #20

Attachment J.B-1, MOB/DEMOB MISCELLANEOUS WELL, SLINs 330 AA/AB/AC Mobilization/Demobilization - Puget Sound Region/Adak/Whidbey Island.

"To support "Well Installation," "Install Well Monument" (if separate), and "Decommission Well Boring" SLINs for mobilization/demobilization efforts" Do mobilization costs include preparation for and completion of crane inspections for drill rigs, development rigs, and other heavy equipment that perform lifts?

Response: All cost associated with mobilization/demobilization of the equipment so it can be utilized on the Navy project shall be included. This includes any and all necessary inspections.

Clarification question:

a. Please confirm that mobilization costs for SLINs 330 series include costs only for Well Installation and Decommissioning by Over Drilling.

b. Mobilization cost for rigs are often required for work associated with SLINs series 280 – Well Redevelopment Washington State; series 320 - Well Redevelopment Washington State; series 340 – Install/Replace Well Monument; series 350 – Decommission Well Boring Prior Washington State; and series 360 - Decommission Well Boring Alaska State. Does the Navy intend to reimburse to the Contractor for these costs through award of Mobilization SLINs series 330, series 210, or as 400 series Non Pre-Priced work?

Response:

a. Mobilization costs for SLIN 330 series is intended for and to be utilized only when mobilizing a drill rig for Installation and Decommissioning of a well by over drilling.

b. In the event the government agrees a drill rig is necessary for mobilization to perform work under SLINs series 280 – Well Redevelopment Washington State; series 320 - Well Redevelopment Washington State; series 340 – Install/Replace Well Monument; series 350 – Decommission Well Boring Prior Washington State; and series 360 - Decommission Well Boring Alaska State, the appropriate mobilization SLIN would apply.

PPI-Clarification #21

PPI - #134Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLIN series 280 Well Redevelopment for Washington State, row 87 and 320 series Well Redevelopment-Alaska, row 153. No casing diameters are specified. Is the Offerer to include costs for any diameter well or can the Navy state an assumption for casing diameter, such as the 2-inch or 4-inch diameters specified for well installation SLINs, since costs vary significantly by well construction?

Response: Well diameters are discussed in referenced Navy SOPs found in the J.C-1 and SLIN note on row 85 of the J.B-1.

Clarification question: Since neither referenced Navy SOPs found in the J.C-1 nor the SLIN note on row 85 of the J.B-1 specify the diameter of well included in these redevelopment SLINs, must the offeror assume that it applies to all well diameters?

1) For example, are we to provide higher costs with the expectation we will be asked to redevelop an 8-inch diameter extraction or infiltration well when the task might only involve redevelopment of a 2-inch diameter monitoring well?

2) Is it the Navy’s intent that the redevelopment SLINs include the cost of removing, cleaning, and reinstalling the installed pumps and drop pipes for NBK Bangor Site F extraction and reintroduction wells?

3) Will mobilization costs for a redevelopment rig necessary to complete these tasks be allowed for projects subject to SLIN 400AA?

Response:

1) Well diameter and well development procedures are addressed in Navy SOP I-C-2. In addition, well diameter information has been added to series 280, 320, 350, 360, and 370 SLINs in the amended J.B-1. Wells that have diameters outside of the parameters specified in the J.B-1 shall be addressed with SLIN 400AA.

2) No. The cost of removing, cleaning, and reinstalling the installed pumps and drop pipes shall be addressed with

SLIN 400AA.

3) Series 330 SLINS are applicable when the drill rig being mobilized is comparable to a drill rig used to install or decommission a well by overdrilling. For any rig that is less than that, series 330 SLINs do not apply.

PPI ROUND 2 REV.1

PPI - #120

N4425519R6006_Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Attachment K NBK Bremerton LTM, Task 6.2, Page 7.

Please define "mini-mobilization."

Response: The term 'mini-mobilization' was removed in Amendment 0004.

PPI - #121

N4425519R6006_Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Attachment G, Adak FPR Booms, Task 5.4.2, page 7.

The PWS states: “The contractor shall maximize recovery of free-product from affected wells, with a focus on reducing the total volume of free-phase hydrocarbon present at each site and in individual wells.” Please confirm that the maximization of free-product recovery is intended to occur only during the planned 6 visits per year where free-product recovery is performed and as specified in the current work plans.

Response: Maximization of free-product recovery is intended to occur only during the planned 6 visits per year where free-product recovery is performed and per the amended PWS Attachment G.

PPI - #122

N4425519R6006_Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Attachment G, Adak FPR Booms, Task 5.2 Work Plans, page 6.

The PWS states: “Note: The APP/SSHP and the Waste Management Plan required for this task order are included in the PWS Attachment H, Adak LTMOM SLIN.” There is no text in Attachment H about plans being used for both projects. Please clarify if plans developed for Adak LTMOM SLIN are to be written to include of Adak FPR Booms scope of work.

Response: Corrected in Amendment 0005.

PPI - #123

N4425519R6006_Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Attachment H, Adak LTMOM, Task 4.2 – Waste Management Plan, page 5 The PWS states: “All investigative derived waste (IDW) generated during the execution of this task order shall be disposed of off-island by the contractor.” Confirm that waste can be disposed on island per current ADEC guidance.

Response: IDW must be disposed of off island and may not be placed in the island landfill. The contractor may propose a method of treating the IDW on island, to include sampling to confirm status, and if inert, disposal on-island. The approach would require Navy approval prior to implementation.

PPI - #124

Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Paragraph C1.2.2 Operations and Maintenance, Item b - d, page 8 of 32;

N4425519R6006_Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Attachment G, Adak FPR Booms; and Attachment H, Adak LTMOM.

Please clarify if the Contractor is required to cover costs for repair and maintenance of monitoring wells, roads, associated structures or equipment as defined on page 8, paragraph b of Section C1.2.2 in the general PWS.

Response: The contractor is not required to maintain common or public roads. Maintenance and minor monitoring well repair; such as concrete collars and caps, as well as equipment and structures are subject to the $5,000 FFP Liability. The Navy maintains Navy facility roads at Bangor, Whidbey, Bremerton, Indian Island, Keyport, and Jackson Park. Adak, Barrow and Point McIntyre are not Navy facilities. Maintenance that is not addressed in the PWS Attachments including references or SLINs is subject to SLIN 400AA subject to PWS Attachment J.C-1 para

1.2.2 and subparts.

PPI - #125

Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, page 20, C5.1.3.3.3 SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN, 4.

"There should be a minimum of two personnel at each work site, unless conditions dictate otherwise, e.g. routine O&M activities."

Since the majority of SLIN pricing elements involving field activities (SLINs100 to 200, 240 to 370) have work that is "outside of routine O&M activities," should the Offerer assume they will be required to staff two personnel for almost all these field activities?

Response: Based on information provided in the solicitation including references, the Offeror shall staff each SLIN to meet the safety requirements of EM 385-1-1. O&M activities that are defined in the APP as non-routine shall be staffed with a minimum of a Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) plus non-SSHO staff to complete the task.

PPI - #126

Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLINs 270 through 370 for well installation/development/decommissioning, rows 60, 87, 95, 122, 126, and 153.

"Work includes handling, management, and disposal of investigation derived wastes (per all applicable Federal, State, Local, and Navy regulations and guidance for the site)." Personnel shall "... be trained per 29 CFR 1910.120...

"Please identify parameters that define "disposal of investigation derived wastes (per all applicable Federal, State, Local, and Navy regulations and guidance for the site)" contaminants, concentrations, volumes/mass, designation as hazardous vs. non-hazardous, and media.

Response: Contractor to provide data on wastes to the Navy for designation of hazardous or non-hazardous.

Contractor is responsible for disposal of non-hazardous waste, recyclables and hazardous waste. Hazardous waste parameters are identified in Title 40 CFR parts 260 - 273. State and local regulations also apply.

PPI - #127

Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLINs 270 through 370 for well installation/development/decommissioning, rows 60, 87, 95, 122, 126, and 153.

"Work includes handling, management, and disposal of investigation derived wastes (per all applicable Federal, State, Local, and Navy regulations and guidance for the site)." Personnel shall "... be trained per 29 CFR 1910.120..."

Does citation of 29 CFR 1910.120 indicate that the offerer should assume investigation derived wastes contain contaminants and, if so, should the Offerer assume that wastes will be hazardous or non-hazardous?

Response: Citation of 29 CFR 1910.120 indicates that work could be performed at sites requiring training specified in 29 CFR 1910.120.

PPI - #128

Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLINs 270 through 370 for well installation/development/decommissioning, rows 60, 87, 95, 122, 126, and 153.

"Work includes handling, management, and disposal of investigation derived wastes (per all applicable Federal, State, Local, and Navy regulations and guidance for the site)."

If investigation derived wastes contain contaminants, who will be making waste determinations, performing profiling, and making shipping designations?

Response: Citation of 29 CFR 1910.120 indicates that work could be performed at sites requiring training specified in 29 CFR 1910.120.

PPI - #129

Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLINs 270 through 370 for well installation/development/decommissioning, rows 60, 87, 95, 122, 126, and 153.

Pertaining to drilling, development, and decommissioning, are we to assume that the requested drilling SLINs are only for the actual drilling efforts (subcontracted costs) or should consultants provide drilling SLIN costs that include the required and appropriate oversight professionals (e.g., licensed geologist)?

Response: Staffing for these SLINs shall comply with Navy SOPs, State and local requirements.

PPI - #130

Attachment J.B-1, SLINs 270/290/300/310/350/360/370 for well installation/development/decommissioning.

Attachment_J.C-1, Performance Work Statement, pages 11-12, C2.3.3 SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY OFFICER (SHSO), a. "Responsibilities include ensuring that elements of the accepted site health and safety plan are implemented and enforced on-site. Minimum qualifications include the following: 6. Meets the requirements of section 1 and complete training specified in paragraph 01.A.17 of reference j) EM-385-1-1 Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual and has experience implementing EM 385-1-1." PWS, page 20, C5.1.3 SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN, 4. "There should be a minimum of two personnel at each work site, unless conditions dictate otherwise, e.g. routine O&M activities."

EM385-1-1 requires a separate individual from the field operation lead to be designated as Site Safety and Health Officer for construction related work; since that Navy requires a Site Safety and Health Plan for each project and reviews them for conformance with EM-385-1-1, and PWS language states there will be a minimum or two personnel at each work site, will the Navy require two site personnel by the Offerer when performing work with a driller's rig or similar heavy equipment?

Response: Yes, per PWS J.C-1 Section C4.9.2 defines well drilling, push probes and work with heavy equipment as construction work. As stated in the question, EM385-1-1 requires a separate individual from the field operation lead to be designated as Site Safety and Health Officer [SSHO] for construction related work, so a SSHO plus field operation staff are required when performing work with a driller's rig or similar heavy equipment.

PPI - #131

Attachment J.B-1, SLINs 270/290/300/310/350/360/370 for well installation/development/decommissioning.

May the Offerer assume that all drilling sites are out of traffic, allow easy access on wheels, and have no complications from unsteady ground, steep slopes, utility lines, wetlands, buried debris, or similar challenges?

Response: No and not all future drilling locations have been determined.

PPI - #132

Attachment J.B-1, SLINs 270/290/300/310/350/360/370 for well installation/development/decommissioning.

Will any well locations have greater than 6-inches asphalt or concrete? May the Contractor in such cases separately propose costs for a concrete cutting subcontractor in addition to the SLIN price?

Response: For SLINS 270/290/310/350/360/370 assume that coring asphalt or concrete less than 6-inches may be required. Not all future drilling locations have been determined. For situations requiring coring in asphalt or concrete in excess of 6-inches, SLIN 340 AG has been added to the J.B-1. No coring is anticipated for SLIN series 300.

PPI - #133

Attachment J.B-1, SLINs 270 through 320 for well installation/development/redevelopment.

For development/redevelopment, is there an assumed time requirement for active development of a well, or an assumed formation type since locations are unspecified?

Response: No.

PPI - #134

Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLIN series 280 Well Redevelopment for Washington State, row 87 and 320 series Well Redevelopment-Alaska, row 153.

No casing diameters are specified. Is the Offerer to include costs for any diameter well or can the Navy state an assumption for casing diameter, such as the 2-inch or 4-inch diameters specified for well installation SLINs, since costs vary significantly by well construction?

Response: Casing diameters are discussed in referenced Navy SOPs found in the J.C-1 and SLIN note on row 85 of the J.B-1.

PPI - #135

Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLIN series 280 Well Redevelopment for Washington State, row 87 and 320 series Well Redevelopment-Alaska, row 153.

No assumptions on well locations specified. Can the Offerer assume that wells for redevelopment may be accessed by road, be serviced by a rig with tires, and have a monument and guard posts that allow work to be completed without modifications?

Response: For the 280 series SLINs, yes.

For the 320 series SLINS, no. Specific information on wells requiring redevelopment will be identified in individual task orders. For example, monitoring wells in northern Alaska are piezometers (2” PVC pipes). There are no guard posts around the wells. Some well sites are not accessible by roads; this specific information is identified in individual task orders supporting documents.

PPI - #136

Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLIN series 280 Well Redevelopment for Washington State, row 87 and 320 series Well Redevelopment-Alaska, row 153.

May the offerer assume no unstated unusual conditions exist, such as the presence of a non-aquious phase liquid (e.g., free product)?

Response: No and the location of the well for redevelopment has not been determined.

PPI - #137

Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLIN series 350, 360, 370 Well Decommissioning.

Will the linear foot SLINS be awarded on a per well basis or will SLINs be awarded on a total linear foot basis per task order? For example, if a SOW requires decommissioning of two 18' wells and one 35' well in Alaska, will 36 of SLIN 370AA and 35 of SLIN 370AB be awarded or will 71 of SLIN 370AD be awarded?

Response: SLINs will be awarded on a per well basis. In the example provided, 36 of SLIN 370AA and 35 of SLIN 370AB will be awarded.

PPI - #138

Attachment J.B-1, SUB-LINE ITEM NUMBERS (SLINS) SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS, Basic SLIN Note, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLIN series 100, 110, and 120, Row 195.

Should the Offerer include costs in these SLINs to cover the additional level of effort and materials required to conduct PFAS sampling?

Response: Additional sampling costs associated with PFAS samples, shall be reflected in the analytical costs at SLINS 130 CL and 140 AX.

PPI - #139

Attachment J.B-1, Additional Labor SLINs Series 200, rows 5-12.

Which of these labor categories, if any, are SCA-waged positions?

Response: Labor categories associated with SLINS 200 AD, AE, AF and AH are subject to SCA wage determinations.

PPI - #140

Attachment J.B-1, LTMO of IR sites, SLINs 240AK through 240AM for Keyport, rows 48-50.

Will these turnkey SLINs each require their own individual set of plans and meetings (work, QC, APP/SSHP, etc.)

as specified by Attachment J.C-1, Sections C.4 and C.5?

Response: No. Prepare overall plans for use in SLINs 240 AK through 240AM in SLIN 240AK.

PPI - #141

Attachment J.B-1, SLIN 240AN Pt McIntyre Weather Day, row 51.

The SLIN description states that this SLIN will be awarded if the contractor encounters weather or polar bear conditions which prevents field work from being completed within 5 days. Does the Navy intend to then award this SLIN after the condition is documented and that the contractor should incur costs associated with this SLIN before it is awarded? Does the Navy expect the Contractor to remain mobilized until the Navy awards the Weather Day? If award of the Weather SLIN is delayed beyond the Contractors planned Demobilization date, will the Contractor forfeit the Weather Day award if they leave the site?

Response: No. The Contractor shall not incur cost without an awarded modification. In order for SLIN 240 AN to be awarded, the Contractor shall provide the Navy RPM and COR notification and justification that an additional Weather Day is required to complete the field work as soon as the delay is known or anticipated.

PPI - #142

Attachment J.B-1, SLIN 240AN Pt McIntyre Weather Day, row 51 and N4425519R6006_Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Attachment I LTMOM Point McIntyre, Deliverables Table, Page 12.

SLIN 240AN description states that this weather day SLIN will be awarded if the contractor requires more than 5 days to complete the field event. Yet PWS Attachment I specifies that the field event is to be completed within 4 days. Will a weather day be awarded if 5 days is required or should the Offerer include 5th day costs in the turnkey SLIN 240AF price?

Response: Refer to the response to PPI # 141.

PPI - #143

Attachment J.B-1, SLIN 240AN Pt McIntyre Weather Day, row 51 and N4425519R6006_Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Attachment I LTMOM Point McIntyre, Deliverables Table, Page 12.

SLIN 240AN description states that this weather day SLIN will be awarded if the contractor requires more than 5 days to complete the field event. Since PWS Attachment I specifies that the field event is to be completed within 4 days, will the Contractor be evaluated as non performing if a weather day SLIN is awarded?

Response: Refer to the response to PPI # 141.

PPI - #144

Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Paragraph C1.2.2 Operations and Maintenance, Item d -v, page 8 of 32.

The text states, "As part of the revised O&M Manuals, the Contractor has full responsibility for any individual occurrence of repair, including replacement, up to and including the FFP liability limit of $5,000 in direct material and labor cost." Is the FFP liability limit applied to all maintenance occurrences or only to sites that have required O&M manuals?

Response: The FFP liability limit is applied to 240 series SLINs and other sites that have required O&M manuals.

PPI - #145

Attachment_J.C-1,_Performance_Work_Statement, Paragraph C7.1 Travel, page 24.

Please confirm that travel costs, including hotel and per diem, to perform work at Naval Air Station Whidbey and Indian Island NAVMAG facilities shall not be reimbursed as a direct cost to the Contractor because it is within 50 miles of the NAVFAC NW office location at Bangor.

Response: Local travel is determined to be that travel within a 50-mile radius of the local contractor’s office and shall not be a direct cost to the task order. Local contractor's office includes on-site trailers and other offices located at or near treatment facilities as established in 240 series SLINs.

PPI - #146

Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLIN 280 Well Redevelopment for Washington State and 320 Well Redevelopment-Alaska, rows 87 and 153.

"Well redevelopment methods including surge block and bailer/pump should be used. Use of jetting or addition of descaling chemicals into the well are discouraged because of the potential for affecting water quality. However, if necessary shall be conducted at the direction of the RPM, under the supervision of a licensed hydrogeologist."

Because the description is conditional for using jetting or adding descaling chemicals, can the Offerer assume that these SLINs encompass only redevelopment methods including surge block and bailer/pump? Otherwise these line items attempt to fit two different actions into one category that challenge an Offerer to determine appropriate costs.

Response: No. Methods are not limited. SLIN states if other methodology is to be utilized, it shall be done under direction of RPM.

PPI - #147

Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLIN 280 Well Redevelopment for Washington State and 320 Well Redevelopment-Alaska, rows 87 and 153.

"Provide well with a new lockable "J-Plug" and lock."

How should the Offerer include unit price items, such as a" new lockable J-Plug" and lock," into pricing designated by the foot?

Response: It is the Offerors choice how to propose within the SLINs provided.

PPI - #148

Attachment J.B-1, Basic SLIN descriptions for SLIN 280 Well Redevelopment for Washington State and 320 Well Redevelopment-Alaska, rows 87 and 153.

May the offerer assume no unstated unusual conditions exist, such as the presence of a non-aquious phase liquid (e.g., free product)?

Response: No.

PPI - #149

Attachment J.B-1, MOB/DEMOB MISCELLANEOUS WELL, SLINs 330 AA/AB/AC Mobilization/Demobilization - Puget Sound Region/Adak/Whidbey Island.

"To support "Well Installation," "Install Well Monument" (if separate), and "Decommission Well Boring" SLINs for mobilization/demobilization efforts" Because the type of rig and ancillary equipment required can have a significant influence on the mobilization costs, especially for Adak, what type and size of rig should be included in the mobilizations considering the Navy specifies two drilling rig types, two casing diameters, and two…