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
About this file
Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SF_30-Amendment_0004.pdf | ||
| SF30-_Amendment_0003.pdf | ||
| R15PS00971_Putah_Creek_UST_Study-Q A.pdf | ||
| Amendment_0002.pdf | ||
| SF-30 _Amendment_0001.pdf | ||
| Sol_R15PS00971.pdf | ||
| Solicitation_-_SF-1449_-_Putah_Creek_UST_Pilot_Study.pdf | ||
| PWS_w_QASP_Putah_Creek_UST_Pilot_Study6-03-2015.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 .