R15PS00971_Putah_Creek_UST_Study-Q_and_A.pdf

PDF 11 KB Posted

Attached to
Pilot Work Study ¿ Feasibility Study Report Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
R15PS00971
Issued by
Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation

About this file

Questions and Answers

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Pilot Work Study ¿ Feasibility Study Report, newest first.
File Type Posted
SF_30-Amendment_0004.pdf PDF
SF30-_Amendment_0003.pdf PDF
R15PS00971_Putah_Creek_UST_Study-Q A.pdf PDF
Amendment_0002.pdf PDF
SF-30 _Amendment_0001.pdf PDF
Sol_R15PS00971.pdf PDF
Solicitation_-_SF-1449_-_Putah_Creek_UST_Pilot_Study.pdf PDF
PWS_w_QASP_Putah_Creek_UST_Pilot_Study6-03-2015.pdf PDF

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Solicitation Number R15PS00971 Putah Creek UST – Pilot Work Study

Questions and Answers – Amendment 0003 and 0004

Q1: Can a contractor provide other alternatives than those specified in the reports and in the RFP?

A1: Yes. However, your pricing shall be based upon the current PWS and solicitation requirement.

Q2: The 5 day pilot test seems too short to adequately assess any in situ treatment system. Is there latitude to propose a longer pilot test and if so, would that latitude be taken into account in the evaluation of the cost proposals? This is especially critical to evaluate any in-situ bioremediation solutions

A2: Funding currently does not exist for a longer test. There are no trade-offs in the evaluation of proposals, please provide a price for what is required.

Q3: he RFP requests a five day test but then requires that the best solution is executed for this RFP. Contractor must provide a cost proposal for conducting the pilot study of the best of the three prescribed options? Essentially, the contractor must assume a preferred solution prior to evaluation or else price out proposal 3 different ways. Please clarify.

A3: Yes, that's correct; a current deliverable in this PWS is a cost analysis and estimate for final clean-up.

Q4: The 5 day pilot test seems too short to adequately assess any in situ treatment system.

Is there latitude to propose a longer pilot test and if so, would that latitude be taken into account in the evaluation of the cost proposals? This is especially critical to evaluate any in-situ bioremediation solutions

A4: The period of performance will be extended if conditions warrant.

Q5: Will limited fracturing of siltstone bedrock be allowed as an alternative to increase contact of possible biological amendments or chemical oxidants with the petroleum plume?

A5: Any deployed technology has to meet state waterboard approval, if it's approved then yes.

Q6: The RFP does not specific sampling for hexavalent chromium , and the BOR has removed Chromium 6 from the quarterly groundwater sampling suite. If in-situ oxidation is tested will additional testing for Cr6 be required.

A6: It's a petroleum gasoline site, testing for Cr6 is not expected.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .