ATTACHMENT_30_-_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

SPE603-19-R-0512 DFSP SAN PEDRO BFCUSTS THERMAL IRA ATTACHMENT 30

DFSP San Pedro Thermal Remediation SPE603-19-R-0512

Questions – June 5, 2019

1) QUESTION: Period of Performance – Section B of the solicitation status that the period of performance is from Nov 1, 2019 – Oct 31, 2022. Our preliminary schedule indicates that there is not enough time in the POP to perform all of the required tasks while being constrained by electricity usage rate. It is recommended that the POP be increased to 4 years to accommodate the durations for:

a. Design refinement investigation

b. Planning (e.g., designs, permitting, work plans, and associated approvals)

c. Operations (two to three phases due to electrical usage)

d. Cool-down

e. SCG sampling and reporting.

ANSWER: The Contract period of performance (POP) is 36-months to meet mission requirements and will not be changed.

2) QUESTION: Section 4.1, Design Refinement Investigation – page 112 of the solicitation indicates that the subsections to the DRI are:

a. 4.1.1 – Contractor’s Procurement Plan

b. 4.1.2 – Risk Management Approach

Please confirm that these subsections are intended for Section 4.1.

ANSWER: For purposes of proposal preparation, offerors shall address both the Procurement Plan and Risk Management Approach in accordance with the addendum to solicitation provision 52.212-1 which specifies these items are to be included in Section 4.1.

3) QUESTION: Section 4.2, RDIP and Design; and Section 4.3, Design – page 112 of the solicitation identifies those separate subsections; however, Section 4.3 appears to be redundant. Please confirm that Section 4.3 is desired and how it differs from Section 4.2.

ANSWER: 4.3 – No Specific Format required. Offeror will present their designs and demonstrate how their designs meet the requirements of the PWS.

4) QUESTION: IRAP Goals: the goals in the Section 2 of the IRAPs are:

a. Treatment Zone Temperature and Heating Duration Goal (minimum temperatures reached for 120 days continuous with exceptions)

b. Minimum Mass Recovery Goal (including asymptotic mass extraction rate)

After the site is cooled down and the system decommissioned, the following is required:

c. Soil sampling to verify that final soil goals are met (per tables in each IRAP)

Some IRAPs (e.g., for BFCUST 4) also require:

d. The interim groundwater cleanup goal that LNAPL is not present in any wells at the completion of the thermal treatment

We offer the following comments on these goals:

a. Treatment Zone Temp/Duration: We recommend allowing short deviations during equipment maintenance, such as boiler shot-down, that will not impact remediation progress and, therefore ,will not restart the clock

b. Mass Recovery/Asymptotic Extraction Rate: Mass estimates are difficult to determine and the actual mass is unknown until the source zone is depleted and the mass removed has been quantified. We recommend removal of this criterion.

Regarding the asymptotic removal rate, reaching an asymptote is achievable, if the delineation is sufficient to ensure that LNAPL is not present outside the treatment zone. Further, the term “asymptote” is not clearly defined. Stakeholders have different understandings of when an asymptote is reached and what “diminishing returns” means. We recommend eliminating this goal or establishing better definitions.

c. Soil Goals: we believe that the concentration goals are not achievable by heating the treatment zone to 90-100° C, as there is too much mass in the C13-C22 range and individual goals are low, particularly near the water table where LNAPL is found. To achieve these levels, it will be necessary to dry out the treatment zone and heat it to temperatures in the 150-200° C range. Dewatering will be costly and difficult and risks dragging NAPL deeper. We recommend that the soil goals be reviewed, particularly at depth.

d. Mo NAPL in monitoring wells: There is often a residual, less volatile hydrocarbon mass left after thermal treatment. Some longer chain oils can remain as a NAPL sheen or thin layers, even when sites have been depleted of BTEX and Naphthalene. We recommend that this criterion be removed or qualified.

ANSWER: Offerors may propose their own unique approach to the requirement, however the requirements related to this question remain unchanged. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the solicitation. Offerors wishing to take exceptions to the requirement must clearly indicate exceptions in accordance with 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors.

5) QUESTION: 150 Page Limit – please confirm that the following do not count against the 150-page limit for the technical proposal:

a. List of Acronyms

b. Tabs/dividers that aid with proposal organization

c. An Appendix to the Technical/Management proposal, as referenced in Section 1.1 of the RFP.

ANSWER: See instructions for Item “c.” for proposal organization under revised

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS – COMMERCIAL

ITEMS (OCT 2018) (CD 2018-O0018) Volume I – Technical/Management Proposal.

Appendices are now included in the overall page limit, which is increased from 150 to 180 pages. Certain appendices do have page limitations and format requirements. If Offeror chooses to include additional appendices or sections, additional pages beyond the 180-page limit will not be considered in the evaluation as stated in “Volume I – TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL” of ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 –

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018) (CD 2018-

O0018).

6) QUESTION: 11x17 Foldouts - Please clarify whether an 11x17 foldout counts as 1 page or 2 pages.

ANSWER: A single-sided 11x17 foldout counts as 1 page. See instructions under “b.”

under revised ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018) (CD 2018-O0018) Volume I – Technical/Management Proposal: which states “Foldout pages (count as one side of a page) may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, figures, and schematics and not for pages of text.”

7) QUESTION: Electronic Submittal - Please confirm that the proposal should be submitted electronically via email and that no hard copy deliverable is required. Also, electronic deliverables for this solicitation may be quite large. Does DLA have an email file size transmission limit?

ANSWER: No hard copies are required. See, Amendment 0003, RFP, “Additional Instructions For ALL PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS”, paragraph D.

8) QUESTION: Volume IV – Past Performance: The RFP requests contracts and/or subcontracts submitted on the Contractor Performance Data Sheet (CPDS) that are similar in nature to the solicitation requirements and completed within the last __3___ years. Will the government consider extending the 3-year requirement to 5 years to better align with the 5-year requirement for Relevant DoD/DLA Federal Contract Experience in Volume I – Section 1.2 of the RFP?

ANSWER: The time period for past performance recency will remain unchanged.

9) QUESTION: (abridged) Regarding the PWS for the project above, I am writing to request the energy capacity tables mentioned in Appendix C.

ANSWER: Per SECTION J – List of Attachments of SF1449, Attachments 8-29 includes documents that are not available on public websites. For a copy, please send a request to Rhoji.Fernandez@DLA.mil with your CAGE Code and DUNS Number.

10) QUESTION: In section 2.3 SCOPE it reads “The contractor shall provide materials, labor, equipment, and services to perform remediation of soil and groundwater cleanup”.

mailto:Rhoji.Fernandez@DLA.mil

For this cleanup project, what type of packaging will be allowed for the removal of soil and debris? Can the chosen contractor use bags as a method of use?

ANSWER: Per PWS Section 2.3 “The Contractor is required to achieve the soil cleanup criteria using ISTR technologies designated in the IRAP prepared for each of the seven Sites within the Contract period of performance (POP).” Offerors may propose their own approach to the requirement; however the proposal must demonstrate the proposed approach’s ability to meet the PWS requirements. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the solicitation. See PWS Section 3.12 titled “Transportation, Storage and/or Disposal of Wastes” for more information.

11) QUESTION: The email proposal is due at 3 pm Ft Belvoir time on Monday, June 17th.

When are the required hard copies of the proposal due at Fort Belvoir?

ANSWER: See Amendment 0003, RFP, “Additional Instructions For ALL PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS”, paragraph D. No hard copies required.

12) QUESTION: Are the 3 past performance projects and associated past performance questionnaires a maximum number of projects for the entire offeror team? Or are 3 projects and past performance questionnaires required for each member on the offeror team?

ANSWER: 3. Volume III-Past Performance a. Section I-Past Performance iv. Attachment 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE of Section L ADDENDUM TO

52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018) (CD

2018-O0018) has been updated.

13) QUESTION: We request the additional documents associated with Appendix C –

Utilities and Appendix D – Figures, Drawings and Information be posted as soon as possible, as they are required to develop an accurate technical approach and pricing.

14) QUESTION: Please provide the a copy of document titled “Evaluation of Potential Impacts from Planned Restoration Activities, North and South Tank Farm” (SGI, 2018) referenced in the PWS Section 4.1.2.7 Environmental Protection Plan.

includes documents that are not available on public websites. For a copy, please

15) QUESTION: We respectfully request at least a 2-week due date extension upon receipt of all government furnished information including bidder question response.

PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS”, paragraph D.

16) QUESTION: With respect to schedule, I am very concerned with the June 17 proposal due date. Prior to your announcement that there would be several major revisions to the CLIN list and the need for options, which I have not seen on Fed Biz Ops yet, the schedule was very aggressive. The technical approach is very complex and I am sure will generate questions for clarification. We are currently formulating a few. Given a reasonable turnaround time for DLA to respond to the questions and a response date around June 10, I just don’t feel that less than a week is ample time to respond to the questions and scope clarifications you provide and prepare a responsive proposal that will meet your expectations. The complexity and importance of this solicitation deserves more time. Please grant an extension to the due date so that the DLA will receive complete and comprehensive proposals for this important submittal.

17) QUESTION: It is our understanding that the cost for electrical and natural gas energy will be on a time and materials not-to-exceed basis. What change(s) would justify a Request for Equitable Adjustment on CLIN-0009 (i.e. rate changes, changes to treatment volume, under estimating energy usage, etc.)?

ANSWER: Any adjustments to the ceiling price for the Time & Materials CLINs will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 16.601(e) and applicable terms in the contract.

18) QUESTION: How will variations in the CLIN-0009 energy amounts across the various proposals be technically evaluated by the COR in regards to the differences in technical approaches by the various offerors?

ANSWER: See revisions in ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018) (CD 2018-O0018) EVALUATION-

COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014), Factor 1. Technical/Management Sub-Factor 5:

Technical Approach (Installation, Operations, and Decommissioning Phases).

19) QUESTION: The BFCUST IRAPs present the following two primary volumes for consideration in the proposal: Minimum treatment volume, which does not include BFCUST footprint, and the Design refinement investigation area, which does include the BFCUST footprint as well as additional areas outside the minimum treatment volume.

Per the Response to Scenario #1

(RDIP and Design) paragraph on page 125 of the Solicitation, if as a result of the completion of the design refinement investigation, the thermal treatment volume expands beyond the volume included in the offeror’s proposal, “these changes will not result in requests for additional funding for the implementation of the thermal remediation.” Is it correct to assume that increases in the thermal treatment volumes beyond those included in the proposal will NOT justify a Request for Equitable Adjustment for additional drilling, construction, and/or energy costs?

ANSWER: The government will this work as firm-fixed-price. REAs will be evaluated at the time they are submitted. Offerors are reminded not to under-estimate their treatment volumes or mass removal in hopes of an REA after award.

20) QUESTION: On page 114 of the Solicitation under Appendix D: Technical/Management Proposal Project Schedule, item #2states: “Identify field efforts being accomplished within 18 months of contract award, followed by reporting and contract closeout tasks.

The proposed schedule must allow sufficient time for the following activities…” In numerous other areas of the Solicitation and the PWS, references are made to a 36-month period of performance with field tasks described as occurring up to the POP. Further, “field efforts” would include investigation, drilling/construction, thermal treatment operations, and decommissioning which would encompass most of the POP. Please clarify this apparent contradiction.

ANSWER: Please see revised instructions in 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018) (CD 2018-O0018).

21) QUESTION: Is it possible to grant an extension of the submission deadline? It is hoped that this will allow us to provide as much detail and, consequently, the best price possible to the DLA for the work in question.

22) QUESTION: Please confirm that temperature sensors are expected to be placed up to and including the edge of the treatment zone boundaries to ensure that uniform heating is applied throughout the targeted treatment zone and interval.

ANSWER: Yes, in accordance with Section 4.2.2.4 of the PWS temperature sensors are required “throughout the TTZ.”

23) QUESTION: Please confirm that the temperature sensor density requirement will closely follow that of other government agencies [ie. approximately one sensor well for every 1,000 square feet of treatment zone and spaced ~3-feet apart vertically].

ANSWER: Temperature sensor requirements are established in Section 4.2.2.4 of the PWS. Offerors are responsible for proposing their own approach to meet the Government’s requirements. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

24) QUESTION: Given the deep vertical extent of the TTZ, variability of lithology [particularly the vertical hydraulic conductivity] the requirement to maintain hydraulic control during operations and the complex distribution of contaminants of concern in the subsurface please confirm that dedicated vertical extraction wells would be the best practice for the technical approach as per the current technical approach for both Tank 3 and Tank 20.

ANSWER: Offerors are responsible for proposing their own approach to meet the Government’s requirements.

25) QUESTION: PM Requirements: Appendix F –Key Personnel Description and Minimum Qualifications requires the Project Manager to have experience working on at least two in-situ projects within the past 5 years as well as a California-issued PE or PG. To ensure adequate competition and the most qualified Project Manager candidates based on work scope, please consider easing the minimum qualifications to allow for Project Managers with PE/PGs from states other than California.

ANSWER: An Offeror may propose a “Senior Technical Specialist” who possesses California professional licenses if the proposed Project Manager lacks the requisite licenses. However, the Offeror must demonstrate their ability to meet Government PWS requirements with the inclusion of a Senior Technical Specialist that will sign and seal documents submitted to the RWQCB and for other regulatory submittals. See revisions in PWS Section 4.1.2.2 (Staffing Management Plan) PWS 4.1.7 (Key Personnel), and PWS Appendix F (Personnel).

26) QUESTION: Relevant Experience: please confirm that the RFP requires the offeror to provide a minimum of five in-situ remediation projects at bulk petroleum fuels facilities, including three projects within the past 5 years – as referenced in Section 1.2 (page 109) of the RFP. If this requirement is confirmed, we request that the requirement for these projects to be conducted at “bulk petroleum fuels facilities” be removed because it likely greatly restricts the number of vendors that meet this requirement.

ANSWER: Yes, see Amendment 0003, dated June 10, 2019, Revised ADDENDUM TO

52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018) (CD

2018-O0018)”, Section 1.2 revised to: at bulk fuel storage terminals or at other types of hazardous waste remediation sites.”

27) QUESTION: Team Partners Experience: may the experience of an exclusive team subcontractor be used to demonstrate relevant experience?

ANSWER: See revised PWS Section 4.1.5.Evaluation of Joint Ventures and Teaming Arrangements will be performed in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

28) QUESTION: The above Solicitation mentions it is full and open under NAICS 562910.

However the 562910 under remediation is restricted to firm with 750 person. Are we to infer this is limited to 750 person firm?

ANSWER: See SF1449, Block 10. This Acquisition is “Unrestricted”, and is being conducted using Full & Open Competition in accordance with FAR Subpart 6.1.

29) QUESTION: The 750 employees distinguishes a company’s designation as a small or large business. This solicitation is full and open competition so a small or large business may provide a proposal.

ANSWER: See SF1449, Block 10. This Acquisition is “Unrestricted”

30) QUESTION: Is this project considered a new requirement?

ANSWER: Yes.

31) QUESTION: RFP, Pg. 106:

Comment: The Government does not define the file naming conventions for the electronic submission.

Question: Is it acceptable for Offerors to name the files as follows: OfferorName_Volume I (PDF and MS OfferorName_Volume II (PDF); etc. with similar naming for each applicable file?

ANSWER: Yes. Offerors are free to choose their own file naming convention.

32) QUESTION: RFP, Pg. 106:

Are Volume Cover/Title pages excluded from page limits?

ANSWER: No. See Amendment 0003, RFP, Revised ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 –

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018) (CD 2018-

O0018).

33) QUESTION: RFP, Pg. 107:

Will the Government remove the 8-page maximum page limit imposed on Volume I, Sub-Factor 1: Staffing and Relevant Experience (RFP table on page 107)? This will allow Offerors to determine page allocations across all sub-factors (within the 150-page limit);

and specifically to provide an expanded response to the Sub_Factor 1: Staffing and Relevant Experience requirements

ANSWER: See revised ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS –

COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018) (CD 2018-O0018).

34) QUESTION: RFP, Pg. 107-109:

Comment: RFP, page 107, the instructions for Volume I, b. state "Technical Management proposals in this RFP shall be limited to 75 double-sided, 8 ½” x 11” pages, for a total of 150 pages including Appendices and Attachments." In paragraph c on the same page, the table indicates Appendix A, B, C, and D do not count against the page limits.

Question: Can the Government confirm Volume I, Appendix A, B, C and D are excluded from the 150-page limit? Likewise, are Appendix E, the appendix for additional information to Sub-Factor 1 Table #1 (RFP page 108), and any subcontractor teaming arrangement documentation signed by all parties involved (e.g., Teaming Agreements) (Section 1.3, RFP page 109)?

ANSWER: See revised instructions for Item “c.” for proposal organization under

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS – COMMERCIAL

ITEMS (OCT 2018) (CD 2018-O0018) Volume I – Technical/Management Proposal;

also see answer to question #5. Appendices B, C, and D are now counted in the 180 page limit.

35) QUESTION: PWS Section 4.1.6, pg. 31-32:

Please confirm whether or not a Uniform Federal Policy – Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) exists for the sites or will have to be prepared and approved?

ANSWER: There is no existing UFP-QAPP. The Contractor will need to prepare a UFP- QAPP in accordance with PWS Section 4.1.2.3.

36) QUESTION: We respectfully request a 1-month extension (due date 15 July 2019) to this proposal due date to appropriately review the government furnished information and adequately assess utility and air emission components in the context of the remediation strategy for this project.

37) QUESTION: We further respectfully request that DLA provide a response before 10 June 2019 on the requested extension to allow adequate time for the bidders to assessment their go/no-go decision on this RFP.

38) QUESTION: 3.4.2.1.2 Remedial Design Implementation Plan –This section indicates supplemental remediation techniques may be proposed to address areas where the primary remediation technology may not be effectively implemented, in the case of shallow soil contamination, for example. Does the DLA have data on the shallow soils that will allow the Contractor to evaluate this requirement?

ANSWER: Reference the BFCUST-specific IRAP and Nature and Extent (N&E) Report.

See PWS Section 4.2.1: “The Contractor shall implement the design and implementation in accordance with each BFCUST-specific IRAP.”

39) QUESTION: Has IDW generated to date been designated a federally regulated (RCRA) or a California regulated (non-RCRA) hazardous waste? If so from which BFCUST “site” was it obtained and what quantity was removed?

ANSWER: The investigation derived wastes (IDW) from these seven BFCUSTs were non-hazardous waste. Offeror is advised to refer to each of the BFCUST-specific Nature and Extent Reports for this information.

40) QUESTION: Are the remedial technologies design specifications described in the IRAP(s) Remedial Performance Criteria (Section 2.3) mandatory elements of the DF-FE contractors’ technical approach or will alternative technical approaches be considered to obtain BFCUST site closure within the performance period? For example: IRAP Section

2.3.1 Treatment Zone Temperature and Heating Duration Goal – is it mandatory that the DF-FE Contractor maintain a minimum of 90 degrees C for a minimum of 120 days if the Remedial Action Goals are met sooner? And will alternative Remedial Approaches be considered instead of ERH/Steam?

ANSWER: Offerors may propose their own unique approach to the requirement, however the requirements related to this question remain unchanged. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the solicitation. Offerors wishing to take exceptions to

41) QUESTION: Would the DLA accept a registered California Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist as another required key personnel on the Offerors’ Project Organization and Staffing Approach in lieu of the requirement for the Project Manager or other key personnel having a PE or PG Registration in the State of California?

ANSWER: An offeror may propose a “Senior Technical Specialist” who possesses the California professional licenses if the proposed Project Manager lacks the requisite licenses. However, the Offeror must demonstrate their ability to meet Government PWS requirements with the inclusion of a Senior Technical Specialist that will sign and seal documents submitted to the RWQCB and for other regulatory submittals. See revisions in PWS Section 4.1.2.2 (Staffing Management Plan) PWS 4.1.7 (Key Personnel), and PWS Appendix F (Personnel).

42) QUESTION: Appendix F of the PWS states that the project manager must have performed similar work for at least 2 in-situ thermal projects within the last 5 years. Do those 2 projects have to be complete or will DLA accept the project experience if it is 75% complete?

ANSWER: See revised ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018) (CD 2018-O0018) Volume I – Technical/Management Proposal. Revised Section 1.3 states that Offerors may use completed or active/ongoing projects to demonstrate minimum qualifications.

43) QUESTION: Will the government please provide an internal estimate or Rough Order of Magnitude for this contract on an annual basis (funding profile) and/or for the total 36-month contract duration?

ANSWER: The Government will not provide this data. Offerors are responsible for determining their pricing in this competition.

44) QUESTION: Would the DLA consider developing and presenting alternative cleanup goals to the LARWQCB?

ANSWER: No, DLA will not consider alternative cleanup goals for this solicitation.

45) QUESTION: To enable Contractor’s evaluation of Title V applicability, and to ensure that “ISTR operations …do not exceed Title V thresholds”, will DLA facilitate delivery of required air emissions information for “other site remediation activities, DLA operations and Navy operations”?

ANSWER: Yes. Reference the Utility Usage Tables provided in PWS Appendix for the current thresholds to which the Contractor would need to adhere.

Per SECTION J – List of Attachments of SF1449, Attachments 8-29 includes documents that are not available on public websites. For a copy, please send a request to Rhoji.Fernandez@DLA.mil with your CAGE Code and DUNS Number.

46) QUESTION: To enable Contractor’s evaluation of SCAQMD permitting, will DLA provide permit applications to and permit application related correspondence with

SCAQMD?

ANSWER: Yes. Pertinent applications and letter correspondence with the SCAQMD is provided as “ATTACHMENT 10 – PWS APPENDIX D-3 AIR TITLE V

CORRESPONDENCE.”

Per SECTION J – List of Attachments of SF1449, Attachments 8-29 includes documents that are not available on public websites. For a copy, please send a

47) QUESTION: “Contractor shall provide detailed written responses to all comments and incorporate comments as appropriate”. Does the DLA expect response to comments (RTC) deliverables in between the 4 defined Technical Report review steps?

ANSWER: As discussed in PWS Section 3.19.2, different stakeholders will review each deliverable submitted prior to preparation of the final deliverable. Therefore, Offerors will provide responses to comments on each draft (e.g. Internal Draft, Draft, and Draft- Final) prior to the final deliverable.

48) QUESTION: 3.23 Extraordinary Services - regarding “these activities may include…”, please confirm that extraordinary services, are not to be included in our pending submittal, and if requested would require DLA’s authorization of a change order.

ANSWER: As stated in revised PWS Section 3.23, Extraordinary Services will be provided “When directed by the Contracting Officer” and should therefore be excluded from the price proposal.

49) QUESTION: 4.1.2.3 QC Plan - Should one draft and one Final of the QC plan be prepared or will this deliverable follow the 4 defined Technical Report review steps (3.19.2)?

ANSWER: See PWS Section 4.1.2 that states “The PMP will not be submitted for regulatory agency review; therefore, iterations of the deliverable are limited to draft and final versions.” Section 4.1.2 would apply to the QC Plan (Section 4.1.2.3) which is a component plan of the PMP.

50) QUESTION: 3.15 Utilities - “The Contractor will pay for the cost of utility services utilized during the course of ISTR. Current utility accounts will remain assigned to the government. Upon issue of the monthly invoice from each of the utility companies, the invoice will be forwarded to the Contractor by the COR. The Contractor will be responsible for payment of each monthly invoice by the deadline established by the utility. All penalties and interest for late payments will also be the responsibility of the

Contractor.” How timely will the COR be in forwarding utility invoices given that Contractor is responsible for “penalties and interest”?

ANSWER: See Revised PWS Section 3.15. The reference to the COR forwarding utility payments has been removed.

51) QUESTION: We respectfully request a 4-week due date extension starting from the date all government furnished information and answers to questions have been provided to bidders.

52) QUESTION: If an amendment to the PWS is issued, will be questions period be extended?

ANSWER: No.

53) QUESTION: Do all project manager requirements have to be possessed by a single PM or is the use two project managements working as a team and possessing all requirements acceptable?

ANSWER: Two project managers are not acceptable. However, Offeror may elect to include a “Senior Technical Specialist” who possesses the appropriate California professional license. See revisions in PWS Section 4.1.2.2 (Staffing Management Plan) PWS 4.1.7 (Key Personnel), and PWS Appendix F (Personnel).

54) QUESTION: Are there reports, or initial performance data, covering the installation and operations of the steam and ERH tank remediations that are currently underway at the facility? If so, can they be made available to the bidders?

ANSWER: Reports summarizing the installation of steam and ERH remediation systems have not yet been prepared. These systems have not begun operating, so no performance data is available.

55) QUESTION: Can a copy of the report “Evaluation of Potential Impacts from Planned

Restoration Activities, North and South Tanks Farm” be provided to the bidders?

ANSWER: Yes. Pertinent applications and letter correspondence with the SCAQMD is provided as “ATTACHMENT 10 – PWS APPENDIX D-3 AIR TITLE V

CORRESPONDENCE.”

Per SECTION J – List of Attachments of SF1449, Attachments 8-29 includes documents that are not available on public websites. For a copy, please send a

56) QUESTION: Can the documents associated with Appendix C – Utilities and Appendix F

– Figures, Drawings and information be made available as soon as possible?

57) QUESTION: Can a copy of the site plan, grading plan, and utility plan be provided in

AutoCAD compatible format?

ANSWER: No grading or utility plan has been prepared for the thermal work at BFCUST 1,5,7,11,15, 4 or 15. A site plan in AutoCAD format is also not available.

For contract deliverable formats, please see PWS Section 3.19.2. Yes, DLA may accept AutoCad files.

58) QUESTION: Will support activities such as clearing, grubbing and grading be covered by the Oversight Contractor or should bidders include these activities in their costing?

What, if any, other site preparation or site support services will the Oversight Contractor provide under contract to the Government?

ANSWER: See PWS Section 4.2.2. Following contract award, the selected Contractor providing thermal remediation services will be responsible for any site preparations and maintenance (clearing, grubbing, grading, weed control, site roadway maintenance, stormwater control, etc.) required to perform site remediation activities. See revised Section 4.2.3 which states that the Contractor shall maintain site for “(clearing, grubbing, grading, weed control, site roadway maintenance, stormwater control, etc.).”

59) QUESTION: Can a copy of the Utility Closure Plane and Geo-Physical data be provided?

Geophysical data collected as part of remediation activities is publically available on the State of California’s GeoTracker website. There are no utility closure plans, but Offeror may request Tank Closure Reports.

ANSWER: Per SECTION J – List of Attachments of SF1449, Attachments 8-29 includes documents that are not available on public websites. For a copy, please

60) QUESTION: While ERH is specified as the ISTR remedial technology, can bidders base their submittals on other ISTR technologies, including Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH), or a mix of TCH and ERH?

ANSWER: See PWS Section 2.3 “The Contractor is required to achieve the soil cleanup criteria using ISTR technologies designated in the IRAP prepared for each of the seven Sites within the Contract period of performance (POP).” Offerors may propose their own approach to the requirement, however their proposal must demonstrate the proposed approach’s ability to meet the PWS requirements. All Offerors are advised to describe how their proposed approach would minimize potential risks/liabilities (e.g. schedule, technical) to the Government.

61) QUESTION: Do the top 5-feet of all bore holes need to be cleared with hand-digging or vacuum excavation before advancing down-hole equipment?

ANSWER: Offerors may propose their own unique approach to the requirement, however the requirements related to this question remain unchanged. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the solicitation. Offerors wishing to take exceptions to

62) QUESTION: is it mandatory that the DF-FE Contractor maintain a minimum of 90 degrees C for a minimum of 120 days if the Remedial Action Goals are met sooner?

ANSWER: See revised PWS Section 4.2.3.1.

63) QUESTION: Has any drilling waste (IDW) generated at the site been designated Hazardous?

ANSWER: The investigation derived wastes (IDW) from these seven BFCUSTs were non-hazardous waste. Offerors are advised to refer to each of the BFCUST-specific Nature and Extent Reports for this information.

64) QUESTION: Will utility accounts be held in the name of the Contractor or the

Government? If they are held in the Government’s name, can the Government commit to providing Contractor with utility bills within 5-working days of receipt?

ANSWER: See revised PWS Sections 3.15.

65) QUESTION: Will the Contractor be allowed to work more than 8-hours per day and/or on Saturdays, if desired?

ANSWER: Contractor may conduct work outside the core working hours. Contractor shall comply with all federal, state, or local statutes, however the contractor is responsible for the costs of such work within their proposed fixed price. See revised PWS Section 3.6

66) QUESTION: Will piping and equipment be required to have seismic anchoring/bracing, or are there specific components or classes of equipment that must have seismic anchoring/bracing?

ANSWER: See PWS Section 3.7. This section states, in part, that the Contractor “shall identify and comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes” and “is solely responsible for reviewing all publicly available information and forming an independent, professional conclusion/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to meet the requirements of this contract.”

67) QUESTION: Are the minimum qualifications the same for the alternate thermal remediation engineer as for the primary? Specifically does the alternate need 8 years of thermal remediation experience or would something less be acceptable?

ANSWER: The PWS does not identify an “alternate thermal remediation engineer.” Key personnel must meet all personnel qualifications as stated in the PWS.

68) QUESTION: Will there be an extension on proposal final submission?

69) QUESTION: Does DLA have bonding requirements for this project?

ANSWER: No.

70) QUESTION: Regarding section 1.1 General Description - DLA states that the seven sites selected are slated for "Electro-thermally enhanced multi-phase extraction (ET-MPE) - BFCUSTs 1, 5, 7, 11, and12; and Steam enhanced thermal extraction (SETE) at BFCUSTs 4, and 15." Will DLA accept a proposal with a technical approach recommending another ISTR method i.e. heating via natural gas?

ANSWER: See PWS Section 2.3 “The Contractor is required to achieve the soil cleanup criteria using ISTR technologies designated in the IRAP prepared for each of the seven Sites within the Contract period of performance (POP).” Offerors may propose their own approach to the requirement, however their proposal must demonstrate the proposed approach’s ability to meet the PWS requirements. All Offerors are advised to describe how their proposed approach would minimize potential risks/liabilities (e.g. schedule, technical) to the Government.

71) QUESTION: Regarding section 4.1.5 Contractor Capability and Experience - DLA states that "The Contractor’s prior experience shall include development of steam injection and electrical resistivity heating remediation systems". Will DLA accept project experience for other ISTR methods i.e. heating via natural gas?

ANSWER: Yes. However, an offeror must have a minimum of 5 facilities experience with the specific remedial technologies as described in the PWS. See revised PWS Section 4.1.5.