Attachment 0001 - Environmental PWS - REV 1 17DEC2021.pdf

ATTACHMENT 0009

Question and Answers The following questions have been submitted in response to solicitation W52P1J- 22-R-0003.

Q1. The scope of the miniburn could vary significantly based on location. Should this requirement be broken out by location?

A1. In order to address this question the miniburn has been broken out into “conventional miniburn” and “cryo miniburn”. The Performance Work Statement (PWS), Attachment 0001, sections 2.9 and 2.10 have been updated to reflect these changes.

The price evaluation spreadsheet, Attachment 0005, has also been revised to reflect these changes.

Q2. The scope of the CPT could vary significantly based on location. Should this be broken out by location?

A2. In order to address this question the Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) has been broken out into “conventional CPT, and “cryo CPT”. The PWS, Attachment 0001, sections 2.12 and 2.13 have been updated to reflect these changes. The price evaluation spreadsheet, Attachment 0005, has also been revised to reflect these changes.

Q3. The required timing on submittal of the CfPT plan is very different than the CPT plan, and it appears as if the same timing was assumed in this scope item. The test plan is due to the state 60 days prior to the test, and has to include a review of the prior 12 months of operating data. So, the schedule provided in the task doesn’t work.

A3. The submittal timeframe for the CfPTP has been revised in the PWS, Attachment 0001, in section 2.14 and Exhibit A, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) A010.

Q4. The CfPT for MCAAP will be twice the effort of any other APE facility. How do you want us to price this?

A4. The CfPT requirement has been broken out into cryo and conventional. The PWS, Attachment 0001, sections 2.15 and 2.16 have been revised to reflect this change.

Additionally, the price evaluation spreadsheet, Attachment 0005, has been revised to reflect these changes.

Q5. The HWC MACT training described herein is inconsistent with the current programs offered at the sites. Is the government looking to change and beef up the initial training, or is this in error?

A5. The PWS, Attachment 0001, under 2.17 has been updated to reflect the change in hours requirement for Hazardous Waste Combustor (HWC) Operator Training.

Q6. Should the price quoted reflect the cost for ONE initial course and ONE refresher course, or should the price quoted reflect the total cost for each of the three covered MACT facilities?

A6. The price evaluation matrix, Attachment 0005, has been updated to include pricing for initial course and the refresher course.

Q7. Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) Calibration and Testing - Given that there is no specification on the number of units or sites that need assistance, should we simply work from a specified level of effort?

A7. This requirement will be priced at the time of the need based on the scope at that time. The PWS, Attachment 0001, under section 2.18 has been updated.

Q8. I assume based on the pricing sheet that you want a price PER RATA, not one price for all three required RATAs at each of the APE furnaces under section 2.16.

A8. Yes, this will be price per RATA.

Q9. The contingency day pricing will vary significantly from test to test. Pricing is dependent on the size of the test team and the amount of equipment being held on site for each day. How do you want to handle this?

A9. The U.S. Government understands there will be some assumptions made while determining a price for the contingency days based on the unknowns at this time.

However, by breaking the test into conventional and cryo we anticipate this will significantly reduce the assumptions that go into the contingency days.

Q10. Section 6.3 – Contractor Manpower Reporting. We were told that most of this moved over to SAM and is only required for certain value contracts. The PWS references ecmra.mil. I checked that URL today and it doesn’t work.

A10. The PWS, Attachment 0001, has been updated under section 6.3 to be consistent with AFARS 5137.9101.

Q11. Section 7. 2 – The text makes reference to a “clearance”. Please confirm if this is a security clearance and what level of clearance is expected? If so, is the government covering the costs of obtaining the clearance, or is that expected to be the responsibility of the contractor?

A11. After further review it was determined that this section does not apply and it has been removed from the solicitation.

Q12. Is the activity described in the PWS paragraph 2.4 intended to produce the Operator Training materials to be used in the 40-hour training and 8-hour training referenced in PWS paragraph 2.14 or is this separate training activity?

A12. 2.4, Educational Consultation, and 2.14, Operator Training, are separate activities.

2.14 would include creation of all necessary material for the training program. Section

2.4 is not required to be priced at this time. If/when this requirement does arise, the U.S. Government will work with the contractor to specify the requirement and negotiate a price.

Q13. Do any of the facilities HWC MACT systems supported by this scope of work have any of the following:

a) More than one mode of operation that must be demonstrated by more than one test condition during the CPT?

b) Require demonstration of organic DRE and not utilize data in lieu?

c) Require spiking to achieve constituent feed rates to demonstrate CPT compliance?

d) Require feed or other process sampling and analysis?

e) Utilize Method 0023A instead of Method 23 with ALT 065 & ALT 052?

f) Require other organic sampling and analysis for items required by risk assessment or permit?

g) Require mercury sampling and analysis?

h) Require metals sampling and analysis beyond SVM and LVM?

A13. To answer:

a) MCAAP would have two modes and has been separated out into two modes, cryo and conventional. The PWS and price evaluation spreadsheets have been updated.

b) DRE is only confirmed by using data.

c) Spiking is necessary to test and achieve maximum levels during tests.

d) Feed determination is part of the CPT/CfPT planning.

e) The tester is to decide what is necessary for permit compliance.

f) This is a task that would be specified at the time of award if needed.

g) Mercury is tested only during CPT.

h) We do not require metals beyond SVM and LVM.

Q14. Does any included facility require RATA for instruments outside of CO & O2?

Examples:

1. Total Hydrocarbons

2. NOx

3. SO2

4. Stack gas flowmeter

A14. During the RATA; CO, O2, and Stack Gas flow are tested.

Q15. Is the travel CLIN intended to include labor during mobilization or is it merely the travel and living expenses?

A15. Travel is just for the travel and living expenses such as transportation, lodging, meals, and etc.

Q16. Should the CfPT and CPT CLIN 2 and 4, include the pretest RATA or will the RATA CLIN be added to the CfPT and CPT CLINs for these activities when the Task Order is issued?

A16. The RATA is anticipated to be completed every year. In the years in which the CfPt or CPT are completed, the RATA will still be funded. However will be completed concurrent to the CfPT or CPT.

Q17. Will contractor be provided with copies of previous test plans, reports and test related Agency notices, comments, or concerns for reference in developing test plans?

A17. At this time the U.S. Government is unable to release the requested data.

However, previous states reports and results could be located on public state websites.

Q18. Is the current RFP due 29 DEC one of a suite that cover different groups of installations for this type work which get renewed as the individual contracts run out, or is there really just a single contract and the 9 installations on the RFP due 29 DEC the only places where ACC issues contracts for this type work?

A18. This solicitation is to look for one contractor that would be able to provide the necessary services to those locations throughout the life of the contract. The sites listed are where we anticipate having requirements throughout the five year contract.

However, as requirements do come up the contractor will be notified and a Delivery order will be awarded to the contractor for that requirement.

Q19. Can the USG provide the most recent copies of the CPTP and CPT report, CfPT Plan and Report, and Miniburn plan and report, as well as any associated quality assurance project plans (QAPP), for each facility? If not, can the USG provide detailed site-specific requirements for each test for each facility over the 5-year contract period?

These details are necessary to provide the most accurate pricing as well as leveling the competition for this contract.

A19. At this time the U.S. Government is unable to release the requested data.

However, previous states reports and results could be located on public state websites.

Q20. Can the USG require pricing broken out at a site-specific level, especially test plans and test execution for RATAs, miniburns, CPTs, and CfPTs? Having one generic cost for each type of test event does not account for the differences in testing at each site.

A20. At this time the U.S. Government will not be breaking out the pricing per location.

Instead changes have been made to the PWS, Attachment 0001, to account for the two different types of testing needed (conventional and cyro).

Q21. Can we assume that site-specific training programs and site-specific regulatory plans (as described in the PWS) for each facility are currently in place, and that only minor modifications are required? Or should we assume that new programs and plans need to be developed in their entirety?

A21. The contractor will be responsible for developing the training plans in order to maintain compliance based on anticipated future feed stock. The contractor will be responsible for developing and providing all required training material.

Q22. Does the USG anticipate milestone or progress payments for the tasks?

A22. Progress Payments are being offered to Offeror’s that request progress payments in their proposal. Clause 52.232-16, Progress Payments, has been added to the solicitation.

Q23. Can the line item prices in Section B of the solicitation reference the line items in Attachment 5 Price Evaluation Spreadsheet?

A23. Prices are only needed to be submitted on Attachment 0005, Price Evaluation Spreadsheet. NOT in Section B.

Q24. Can we include executive summaries in the Technical Capability Volume, Management Approach Volume, and Past Performance Volume that are not included in the page count limit?

A24. Yes you can include an executive summary however they will be counted toward the page limitation.

Q25. Can the USG extend the page count limits as follows:

a. 15 pages for Technical Capability Sub-factor 1

b. 20 pages for Technical Capability Sub-factor 2

c. 15 pages for Technical Capability Sub-factor 3

d. 15 pages for Management Approach Sub-factor 1

A25. Based on the information being requested, it has been determined that the current page could should be sufficient.

Q26. Can the USG extend the submittal deadline to 4 weeks after the requested information is provided?

A26. An extension has been granted and proposals are now due 1/24/2021 1PM CST.