Amendment 0002 - Contractor Questions and Government Answers.pdf

W911KB20R0005

Amendment 0002

Questions/Answers

# Section Question Government Response

Section C, 1.1.1.2 (Change of Personnel)

The SOW states “The Contractor shall obtain COR approval of any proposed changes in project personnel along with the steps taken/proposed to ensure there are no impacts to the schedule or costs associated with individual tasks.” Please confirm this refers only to the key personnel (i.e., the six individual requiring resumes per the solicitation). Also since the task orders are anticipated to be issued as firm-fixed price, any cost impacts should only be relevant for the contractor.

Yes, this only applies to the key personnel

Section C, 1.1.1.3 (Laboratories) This section is unclear since it states that laboratory selection must be made in coordination with the waste program manager. However in order to develop pricing per the solicitation we must select laboratories. Please provide appropriate clarification.

The contractor may select a laboratory for this solicitation, that complies with applicabile DOD, USAF, federal, state, and local standards and requirements to include certification and accreditation programs. They do not need input from the waste program manager.

Section C, 1.1.2 Storage The last sentence appears to repeat the sentence before. Please clarify if this sentence should be deleted. The 2nd sentence provides additional information. It should not be deleted.

Section C, 1.1.3 (Post-Award meeting)

This section indicates that one meeting is required per installation, but it also says the contractor’s personnel can attend via WebEx and other videoconference. Are there any contractor personnel who are required to be on site for the on-site meeting(s)? Also- please clarify if this meeting includes any travel to any of the 611th sites (or just JBER).

The contractor shall determine the best method to implement the onsite meetings under this section

Section C, 1.1.3 (Progress Meetings)

Please clarify if these meetings are to be for each installation (611th, EAFB, JBER) or just 1 meeting for all 3 installations combined and clarify if these should be on-site. Please clarify the requested attendance (Contractor individuals) as well.

Progress meetings shall be held for each installation. Please note that there are 4 installations (611, EAFB, JBER, Clear).

Section C, 1.1.3 (Presentation Materials)

How many paper copies of the slides and overheads are required? Do any paper copies have to be sent to the COR who attends quarterly progress meetings via teleconference?

At the discretion of the contractor.

Section C, 1.1.3 (Environmental Awareness Training)

The JBER EMS Awareness training information/link is provided, but a link for the other installations is not provided ( I.e., Eielson or PRSC). Do these installations also have site-specific EMS Awareness training? If so, how is that training accessed?

ADLS training is a general awareness training and is not specific to JBER. This training applies to all installations.

JBER EMS training is provided at the JBER eDASH site and also on-demand via the TEACH platform (https://usaf.learningbuilder.com/account/login/?ReturnUrl=%2f).

Section C, 2.1.1 EAFB RCRA Emergency Permit support for detonation of munitions: For the description of munitions and their appropriate hazard class, will that information be provided by the EOD Team, or will the contractor need UXO qualified staff who are able to identify the munitions?

EOD will be responsible for munitions identifications.

Section C, 2.1.3.1 (Drum Crusher) If the contractor arranges for alternative options for drum disposal, would a crusher still be required? JBER: Drum Crusher is the current means utilized to facilitate recycling of the drums, but crushing is not a requirement provided that proper disposition occurs.

Eielson: Yes, a drum crusher is still needed as backup in order to save space and reduce transportation costs.

Section C, 2.1.5 Table 8 lists the quantities of typical supplies for both JBER and EAFB. Please provide a breakdown by installation if possible; procuring/sending supplies to EAFB will cost more than providing supplies to JBER.

Breakout is not availabe at this time. Please refer to cost estimates.

Section C, SOW Paragraph 2.2 Begins on page 135 of 339, but the next page subsection is numbered 2.1.7. Should 2.1.7 be renumbered 2.2.1? Similarly, should 2.1.8 on page 140 be

2.2.2 and 2.1.9 on page 141 be 2.2.3?

The AF is aware of the issue but was unable to fix it. It is an issue with MS Word.

Section C, 2.1.7 This section states that the contractor shall meet monthly with each installation Hazardous Materials Management Program Manager. Please clarify if the monthly meeting also includes the 611th HMPM; we assume that is just one meeting at JBER?

The contractor should assume that JBER, EAFB, and 611 shall each have their own meetings.

13 Section C, 2.1.9 The EAFB stock level for Universal Drum Spill kit has an asterisk. What does the asterisk refer to? Please ignore the *.

14 Section C, SOW Paragraph 2.3 Subsections are numbered 2.1.10 through 2.1.16. Should these be renumbered 2.3.1 through 2.3.7? The AF is aware of the issue but was unable to fix it. It is an issue with MS Word.

15 Section C, SOW Paragraph 2.4 Subsections are numbered 2.1.17 through 2.1.23. Should these be renumbered 2.4.1 through 2.4.7? The AF is aware of the issue but was unable to fix it. It is an issue with MS Word.

16 Section C, SOW Paragraph 2.5 Subsections are numbered 2.1.24 through 2.1.25. Should these be renumbered 2.5.1 and 2.5.2? The AF is aware of the issue but was unable to fix it. It is an issue with MS Word.

17 Section C, SOW Paragraph 2.6 Subsections are numbered 2.1.26 through 2.1.27. Should these be renumbered 2.6.1 and 2.6.2? The AF is aware of the issue but was unable to fix it. It is an issue with MS Word.

18 Section C, SOW Paragraph 2.7 Subsection is numbered 2.1.28. Should it be renumbered 2.7.1? The AF is aware of the issue but was unable to fix it. It is an issue with MS Word.

19 Section C, SOW Paragraph 2.8 Subsections are numbered 2.1.29 through 2.1.34. Should these be renumbered 2.8.1 through 2.8.6? The AF is aware of the issue but was unable to fix it. It is an issue with MS Word.

20 Section C, SOW Paragraph 2.9 Subsections are numbered 2.1.35 through 2.1.36. Should these be renumbered 2.9.1 and 2.9.2? The AF is aware of the issue but was unable to fix it. It is an issue with MS Word.

Section C, 2.1.17 (Stacktesting for EAFB, Table 19)

To minimize mobilizations, may the Contractor combine testing events that are required within a few months of each other? If by combining tests it does not result in reduction in the installations ability to comply with all regulatory requirements.

Section C, 2.1.17 (Stacktesting Requirements, Table 19)

The note at the bottom of this table indicates that testing will only be required for tests required after FY2021. Please extend this table (Table 19) to indicate the specific required tests anticipated after FY2021.

Please review Table 19 carefully. It lists the last test date and the testing frequency. With this data the contractor should know when the next test will need to occur.

Section C, 2.1.17.9.3.1. Please provide more details for the monitoring well installations/replacements, specifically to include anticipated well depth and subsurface geology anticipated to be drilled through.

Please see Monitoring Plan file "2014 OU1 LF Post Closure Monitoring Plan" provided with GFI.

24 Section C, 2.1.17.9.3.3. Please provide pictures of the existing fence such that the replacement/repair can be priced to match that fence. See file provided with this response: JBER OU1 Landfill Fence Information.pdf.

Section C, 2.1.28, JBER QRP This section indicates that the Contractor must provide pickup of recycling materials using the government provided trailers. We believe a more efficient operation may be provided through alternative means. Can we present alternative proposals for this task? If so, please provide requirements for how the alternative proposal should be presented.

The government provided trailers provide a quantifiable level of service by number of locations. If an alternative means was identified that resulted in no decrease to the number and capacity of those service locations, that woud be acceptable. Such altenate means proposed would still be required to meet a schedule to ensure service of those receptacles before they reach 75% capacity.

Section C, 2.1.28, JBER QRP This section indicates that the Contractor shall provide pickup of office paper (shredded) from up to 100 facilities. Please provide further clarification on this pickup service- is this service that is to be janitorial type (I.e., pickup of containers in office areas, etc.) or is it pickup from a consolidated container located at an area outside the facilities? What is the intended frequency for this pickup service?

The pickups in are in designated areas inside each facility. The shredded paper is tied in plastic bags.

Although some serviced facilities are on a recurring schedule for pickups and others must call to request a pickup, on average, the contractor can assume a pickup is required every 2-3weeks.

Questions/Answers

Section C, 2.1.28, JBER QRP Please provide a detailed description of the containers used for the scrap metal (I.e., if these are rolloff type dumpsters- what are their hoist-types, lid types, etc.). This will impact what type of truck must be used for their pickup (and thus the pricing).

The scrap metal containers are 40-50 cubic yard roll-offs hoist type. They all are lid type though some have been damaged.

Section C, 2.1.28, JBER QRP Please indicate if alternative (and more efficient) operations may be permissible for the QRP facility. Yes, increased efficiencies via alternative procedures are welcome, provide that performance standards are not negatively impacted.

Section C, 2.1.28.1, JBER QRP Small Arms Casing Demililtarization. Can the contractor just perform casing pickups on a monthly or quarterly basis? Similarly, can accumulated casings be demilled just a couple times each year? We understand that the demilitarization shall be performed using government provided equipment (I.e., the SCU/deformer). Please provide details (eg, manufacturer’s O&M Manual) for this equipment. Please provide the SOP for the deforming process as indicated in Section 2.10 (Training Requirements). Also please indicate if this equipment is located inside or outside of a particular facility.

Small arms casings are brought to the processing area by the customer, therefore the Contractor will not be required to pickup brass from the range. Casings demil operations must be performed on a recurring basis as generated in order to process no less than 75% of the brass generated each calendar year. The Operations Manual for the SCU has been provided as an attachement. The SOP for the brass demil process is included as Appendix E to the JBER Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. The SCU and deformer equipment are located inside of the processing facility.

Section C, 2.1.29, Spill Response Please indicate the frequency of anticipated spill response. This section indicates an anticipated cost for this task, however please indicate if this is just the anticipated cost for the spill response materials? Will spill residue (I.e., contaminated soils or water) be disposed through the facility hazardous waste facility/contract? Also please indicate if the Contractor is anticipated to provide a spill phone that is continuously reachable?

JBER: Though not predictable, assume 4 responses on average per year. Assume the anticipated cost is for response/recovery materials, but does not include direct waste disposal costs.

Eielson: Anticipated frequency is 2-3x per month. Assume cost listed is for materials and labor. If the spill is caused by a shop on base, soil or water disposal is through the facility haz waste shop. If the spill is caused by contractor, that contractor is responsible for coordinating disposal. Spill phone is provided by government, and contractor is expected to respond to calls during non-business hours.

Section C, 2.1.30, AFFF Spill Response

Please indicate the frequency of the events that may occur through this task. Note that for efficiency purposes, this task is recommended to be combined with Task 2.1.29.

JBER: Though not predictable, assume 4 responses on average per year

Eielson: Assume 2-3x monthly

Section C, 2.1.31, Spill Response Supplies

Please note that the indicated number of kits to be provided through this task are larger than can be procured through the dollar amounts noted through this section. Please reconcile.

Assume the costs as provided in this section for the task.

Section C, 2.1.32, Spill Phone Please clarify if this task should be combined with 2.1.29 and/or 2.1.30; also clarify which installations this task applies.

Please provide the frequency with which calls may be received on this phone.

Also this task does not indicate if the contractor shall respond to the spills or just record information and call the appropriate Base Spills Program Manager?

See Table 35 to determine which bases it refers to (EAFB, JBER).

JBER: Though not predictable, assume an average of 35-40 phone calls per year.

JBER: As outlined in task language, additional reporting to Gov't may be required dependent on nature/regulatory status of the individual spill event received via the phone.

Eielson: This task relates only to answering the spill phone and recording/relaying information to the Base Spills Program Manager.

Spill response is not a requirement under 2.1.32.

Section G, 1.3, Task Orders. We understand that task orders will be issued under this contract for future requirements. Please provide a better description as to how this may be exercised. For example, we anticipate that only base year tasks can be awarded initially. Will the contractor have the ability to re-price out year tasks?

Since many tasks have “startup costs” (I.e., operation of the JBER and Eielson CAA facilities), please indicate how these should be priced.

This is a pre-priced indefinite delivery contract. Annually a modification will implement the new SCA wage rates. Annual pricing changes should be limited to the SCA wage rate adjustments.

Any projected cost for the CLIN should be accounted for in the pricing for this solicitation.

Section I, Clause 52.211-11 This section allows for liquidated damages per task order with amount not specified per calendar day of delay. Please indicate the amount per calendar day of delay.

Liquidated Damages Clause removed from Solicitation.

Section I, Clause 52.219-1 This is a Representation that must be completed by the offeror. Where does this get submitted? Should this be submitted with Section K? (it is not currently included in Section K) Providsion moved to Section K of solicitation.

Section I, Clause 52.219-28 Please indicate where this certification must be submitted? This is not currently included in Section K. This is a Clause and According to FAR matrix it belongs in UCF section I. This is post award representation. Please read clause section (b) of the clause for when this clause would need to be submitted to contracting.

Section J Please note that the PPQ attachment was provided in Section L, starting at page 325. A Microsoft Word version of the PPQ is included as part of Amendment 0002. Section J List all attachments. The PPQ is labeled as "SF33 Attachment L-1" and is included in Section L.

Section L We request reconsideration on providing any hard copies of the proposal given the current limitations on accessing facilities and work restrictions due to Covid-19. Can appropriate PDF versions of the proposal be provided (via either CD or DoD SAFE)?

Hard copy requirements were removed in amendment 0001.

N/A Section L Please note the following questions that would apply if hard copies are required. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 Section L, 2.3.9 Should the unbound copy be printed double sided? If so, how should it be printed? Tip-to-tail? Hard copy requirements were removed in amendment 0001.

Section L, 2.3.11 Item a.v. Please confirm that the electronic files must be compatible with MS Office 2007 and MS Project 2007. Section L, 2.3.11 has been modified to be compatiable with MS Office 2013 and MS Project 2016.

Section L, 2.3.11 Please confirm if the Master copy is a single PDF file of the entire volume, and that the Master copy is included on the same CD-ROM as the separate files.

The submittal of CD-Roms was removed in Amendment 0001.

Questions/Answers

Section L, 2.4.6 Item l indicates resumes are not page counted, but Table 2.2 indicates each resume is page counted, and that the total pages for Factor 3 are 16 with

12 pages total for resumes and 4 pages for Other Required Information. Please confirm if resumes are page counted.

Resumes has been removed from section L, 2.4.6 and replaced with Professional Registration Certificates.

Section L, 2.4.6 This section does not specify if Professional registration certificates are excluded from the page counts, but Table 2.2 states that Professional registration certificates are excluded. Please confirm Professional registration certificates are excluded from the page count.

Resumes has been removed from section L, 2.4.6 and replaced with Professional Registration Certificates.

Section L, 2.4.6 This section does not specify that Recognition documents for Factor 4 are excluded from the page counts, but Table 2.2 states that Recognition documents are excluded. Please confirm Recognition documents are excluded from the page count.

Volume III - Recognition Documents has been added to Section L, 2.4.6.

Section L, 3.1 Provides a volume organization for Volume 1, but this does not match Table 2.2. Also, information requested in Standard Proposal Information is listed separately after Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements. Please confirm that the following are the correct tabbed sections and order for Volume 1:

Contact Information (see question 49 for additional clarification request) Executive Summary Master Table of Contents Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Validity Statement (see question 50 for additional clarification request) Organizational Conflict of Interest Analysis and Mitigation Plan Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent Exceptions to Terms and Conditions Representations and Certifications

Section L, table 2.2 has been revised to include all requirements as specified in Section L, 3.1.

Exceptions to Terms and Conditions was removed from section 3.1. 3.7 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements was revised to Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements or Terms and Conditions.

Section L, 3.1 Is Contact Information the correct name for the tabbed divider for the cover letter that provides the POC information? Contact Information and Validity statement is the correct name. See response to question number

46.

Section L, 3.1 If the validity statement is part of the cover letter, is there also a separate validity statement with its own tabbed divider? Section L, 3.2 has been modified. Validity statement has been combined with Contact information to read a) Contact Information and Validity Statement, d) Validity Statement has been removed.

Table 2.2 has been revised as well to reflect this change to combine Contact Information and Validity Statement.

Section L, 3.6, item a Is there any time limit to potential OCI related work/projects that is to be identified at each installation? A full list of all cleanup related work in the past, without a time limit, would be extensive, and might not be possible to provide (e.g., specific document titles for work completed >10 years ago);

this would also use significant page space. Please provide further clarification on the requirements for this section. For example, please indicate if this requirement is only intended to have the contractor identify if they have performed other Fence-to-Fence type services, other compliance services/task orders, or government representative (program management support) services.

Section L, 3.6 a) has been revised to a) If the Offeror (including Teaming Partners, subcontractors, subsidiaries, and legacy companies) performed any Fence-to-Fence type services, environmental compliance services, or government representative (program management support) services cleanup related work in the past 5 years/present at sites identified in as part of this requirement...

Section L, 4.1, Dividers This seems to indicate that a tabbed divider section is required per Table 2.2, but there doesn’t appear to be anything to put into that section.

Similarly Section 4.3, General Guidance, is a tabbed divider section per Table 2.2, but there doesn’t appear to be any content for that section.

Current Amendment 0001 search yielded dividers mentioned one time as a non countable page.

Issue likely resolved with the removal of the rquirement of a hard copy. General guidance has been removed from table 2.2.

In electronic proposals, offerors should provide electronic bookmarks or divider sections (pages) to provide clear delination between sections of the proposals. If a divider section is used, it non countable page as long as their is no contractor proposal information on the page.

Section L, Table 2.2 This section does not indicate if the integrated master schedule is excluded from the page count of Factor 1, but 2.4.6 says it is excluded. Please confirm the IMS is excluded from the page count.

The integrated master schedule is excluded from the page count.

Section L, 4.6, Project Descriptions This section indicates that TO summary submittals must be for projects/task orders that are at least 50% complete as of the date of the solicitation.

However, given the seasonality of work for Alaska, we request that this be relaxed to at least 1/3rd complete.

A majority of environmental compliance work is not impacted by seasonality. The requirement remains as described in Section L.

Section L, 4.6 Please clarify that the following items are required for Factor 3. (Excluding resumes)

Description of Qualified Field and Management Team Organizational Chart Organizational Chart with Table (a second org chart?)

Qualifications of All Proposed Personnel Supporting the Requirements in PWS Successful Implementation of Proposed Remediation Technologies Ensuring High Quality Services and Deliverables Communication between Stakeholders Risks to Management Approach Success

Each bulleted item should be included as prescribed. Organizational charts may demonstrate more than one bulleted item. The third bullet has been revised to remove program chemist and public affairs officer from the end of the sentence. The 6th bullet has been revise to the following: • A description of how the Offeror successfully implemented the proposed environmental compliance technologies on similar projects/sites submitted for Factors 2 and 4 of this solicitation.

Section L, 4.6 Please clarify the page limit for the above mentioned items. Table 2.2 lists four (4) pages however two (2) of the four pages will be dedicated to an org chart and table leaving two (2) to adequately address the remaining items. Please consider increasing the page limit for this section to 12 pages (one 11x17 page each for the org chart and table, 10 pages for remaining information.)

Table 2.2 has been revised from 4 pages to 6 in the referenced section. Total page count for technical factor 3 has been revised to 18 pages.

Questions/Answers

Section L, 4.6 States that key personnel include a Program Chemist and Public Affairs Officer, but the list of key personnel resumes do not include a Program Chemist or a Public Affairs Officer. Please confirm offerors are NOT to provide a resume for either a Program Chemist or a Public Affairs Officer.

The third bullet has been revised to remove program chemist and public affairs officer from the end of the sentence.

Section L, 4.6 Key Personnel Qualifications

Says offerors are to submit information of “no more than three (2) pages each.” Please confirm this should say “no more than two (2) pages each.” Section L, 4.6 has been revised to clarify two (2) pages each.

Section L, 5.1 This section does not match Table 2.2:

What do we put in tabbed divider for Volume Organization?

What do we put in tabbed divider for Specific Content?

Is the Executive Summary part of the Standard Proposal Information (it is for Factor 1, but apparently not for Factor 4)

Table 2.2 has been revised to match section L, 5.1. Executive summary added to table 2.2. Volume orgaization should include the Table of Contents, List of Tables and Figures, and Glossary of Abreviations and Acronyms.

Please reference Section L, 5.9 for requirements.

Section L, 5.5 Confirm that the Past Performance Information Sheet for each project is exactly the same as the two-page narrative submitted in Factor 2. Section L, 5.5 states, "Provide COPIES of the project summaries submitted under Factor 2

Corporate Experience as a part of the submission for this Factor 4."

Section L, 5.6, Table 2.2 Indicates PPQs can have no more than 2 pages of additional narrative. Since the PPQs are to be submitted directly to the Contract Specialist, how can we confirm that a given client has not exceeded that page count? Could the page count for this section be removed, allowing our clients to make whatever comments they think are relevant to our performance?

How do we sequentially number pages for these PPQs?

How do we provide a copy on the CD-ROM?

The page count limitation stated in Table 2.2. Section L Paragraph 5.6 changed to state clients may request PPQ to be submitted to contract specialist directly. Please note that the Instruction page and the Ratings and Definition Page do not count toward the number of pages in stated in Table 2.2.

It is up to the Contractor to determine how to sequentially number pages.

Requirement for a CD-ROM has been removed in Amendment 0001.

Section L, 5.6, PPQs If the Contractor is providing projects with available CPARs ratings – should PPQs still be submitted for these projects? Given the current Covid-19 situation, we request that just the CPARs ratings be utilized; many government personnel that would complete the PPQs are not readily accessible.

PPQs are required as specified in Section L, 5.6.

Section L, 5.9 Specific Content is not one of the items in 5.1 Volume Organization. Is specific content a separate section with unlimited page count, or is it to be considered instructions for the Past Performance Summary?

Specific Content has been added to Section L, 5.1 Volume Organization.

Section L, 6.4 Does the response to Factor 5 include any kind of backup or price build-up for the Schedule B, or is the pricing submission only the Standard Proposal

Information and Schedule B?

Please refer to Section L, 6.3 General Instructions.

63 Section L, Attachment L-1 Please provide a Word version of the Form PPQ-0 to send to clients? (if required per question 60) A Microsoft Word version of the PPQ is included as part of Amendment 0002.

Section C, 2.1.17.9.2 (JBER LF) Analyte list in paragraph 2 text of this section does not match the analyte list in Table 29. Assuming the more inclusive text is accurate? Assume the the more inclusive list as paragraph 2 indicates, to include analytes from Table 29 as well as "all constituents identified in Appendix II of 40 CFR 258.55."

Section C, 2.1.17.9.3 (OU1 LF JBER) Please clarify what “…using a modified analytical template…” means. Actual analyte lists would be helpful, or past reports. 2017 annual report is provided with this response

Section C, 2.1.18 - SAM, Storm Water (EAFB)

The first paragraph of this section talks about JBER, but this section is supposed to be EAFB. JBER is discussed in para 2.1.19, but only in regards to inspections. Where are the actual analyticals for JBER stormwater discussed?

Please see revised PWS language.

Section C, 2.1.17.8 - Table 26 EAFB permit AK0001341, Outfall 1, UPS and MXZ have pH as grab samples, monthly and daily. Is a YSI sufficient to cover this, as “measure”? Eielson: Yes, provided the model of YSI instrument used can accurately and precisely capture the samples required by the permit.

68 Section C, 2.1.17.8, Table 26 Please provide a copy of permit AK0001341. Permit AK0001341 was provided in the GFI.

In light of the current health risks, will the government be amenable to removing the requirement for physical hard copies and shift this to an eDeliverable?

The requirement for a hardcopy has been removed in Amendment 0001.

Section L of the RFP, Instruction to Offers #1 indicates a Site Visit presentation will be published via an amendment to the solicitation on or around 31 March 2020. Can the Government please provide the Site Visit presentation or indicate when it can be expected on Beta.Sam?

Site visit has been cancelled. Photos and videos were supplied in Amendment 0001 in lieu of a site visit.

Section 2.10, F2F Qualifications/Experience, Table 2 Labor Category Experience Levels. Experience Requirement indicates BS Degree is required, is a Bachelor's Degree (BA or BS) in a Science related field adequate to meet the required education experience requirement?

A BA is not acceptable. A BS is required.

Please clarify where to include proposal items listed in section 3.1 Volume Organization for Volume I on page 318 of the RFP, but not included in the instructions for this volume or the overall proposal organization in Table 2.2 on page 312 of the RFP. The items in question are Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent, Exceptions to Terms and Conditions, and Representations and Certifications. Is it the intent of the government that these items should be included following section 3.7 as individual tabbed sections?

See Section L, 3.1 a-k. Items a-k should preface 3.2 Contact Information as indicated in table 2.2 in the order specified in 3.1.

Please clarify what is intended for sections that are instructional only, but included in Table 2.2 Proposal Organization, as the RFP explicitly states on page 312, “The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table…” For example, each volume contains a section for the overall volume organization (3.1, 4.1, 5.1, and 6.1), but the content is then repeated in the sections that follow. What content is intended to be included in the Volume Organization sections? Additionally, in Volume II section 4.3 General Guidance, there is no specific content required to be submitted in that section. However, this section is listed as a required section in Table 2.2, but not included in section 4.1 Volume Organization. Should offerors include a tab with no content for this item?

Section L. 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, and 6.1 each specify what content should be included and the order of that content. General guidance has been removed from table 2.2.

In Volume III section 5.1 Volume Organization on RFP page 323, there is a copy of the Executive Summary required, but in 5.2 Standard Proposal Information, the Executive Summary is not listed. Please advise if the Government would like the Executive Summary copy included in section 5.1 or 5.2.

Table 2.2 has been revised to match section L, 5.1. Executive summary added to table 2.2.

In Volume IV, section 6.1 Volume Organization, sub-part d) the RFP asks for Exceptions, Assumptions, and Rationale; however, this is not included in the instructions and there is not a section in this volume for a narrative. Please clarify where the government wants proposers to include d) Exceptions, Assumptions, and Rationale and what specific content is requested. Is there a page limit for this content/section?

Exceptions, Assumptions, and Rationale should be included in the volume organization section as prescribed in Section L, 6.1. As specified in table 2.2, the is no page limit for items in the Volume organization associated with section 6.1.

Table 2.2 Proposal Organization indicates resumes are limited to 2 pages not including evidence of relevant professional certifications; however, the instructions on page 322 indicate resumes can be no more than three (2) pages each. Please clarify how many pages are allowed for each resume and for the overall Section 4.6.

Section L. 4.6 has been revised to clarify two (2) pages for a total of 12 pages of reumes as indicated in table 2.2. In response to question 54, total page count for technical factor 3 has been revised to 18 pages.

Questions/Answers

In Attachment L-1 Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), 1st page, 2nd paragraph it states: “Also include performance recognition documents received within the last seven (7) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.” Should these documents be included as attachments to the PPQ forms or somewhere else in the proposal document, and is there a page limit for these documents?

Volume III - Recognition Documents has been added to Section L, 2.4.6. Recognition Documents are referenced in table 2.2, volume 3 - 5.6 and further clarifies that recognition documents are excluded from the page limit.

Task 2.1.28 QRP. Will the contractor be required to provide the bailing wire for the cardboard and paper bales, or will that be provided by the government?

Contractor will be expected to provide the bailing wire.

2.10 FTF Qualifications / Experience. Hazardous Waste, Under All Other Contractor Personnel, it lists: RCRA-Hazardous Waste Generator specific training, such as the McCoy 5-Day RCRA Seminar (initial training, and annual review of initial training, as required by applicable regulation). Are you really requiring the RCRA McCoy seminar (or similar) for all contractor personnel who perform any function for hazardous waste?

Large Quantity Generators of Hazardous Waste must comply with training requirements found at 40 CFR 262.17, to include initial and annual review of training. The type and degree of training required is dependent upon the roles and responsibilities of the employee. At a minimum all personnel on this contract who are involved in Central Accumulation Area (CAA) Operations will require training.

2.10 FTF Qualifications / Experience QRP. According to this section, “Personnel will be fully trained and certified/licensed to operate the SCU and deformer”, and “At a minimum, Contractor(s) shall be trained to accomplish the following tasks:

• How to determine which material cannot be disposed of through a QRP;

• How to check both the name and signature on all turn-in documents (DD Form 1348-1) against the current list of personnel authorized to certify firing-range scrap consisting of expended brass and mixed metals gleaned from range clearance as safe;

• How to read and complete a MDAS form.

• How to visually inspect firing-range scrap consisting of expended brass and mixed metals gleaned from range clearance certified as safe to recognize potential explosive safety hazards; and

• How to report any turned-in firing-range scrap consisting of expended brass and mixed metals gleaned from range clearance that is found not to be safe.

Will the Air Force be providing this training?

JBER: The training referenced in this question is to be provided by the government.

The RFP provided a CLIN/Sub-CLINS listing spreadsheet, but not an actual Schedule B that allows entry of the sub-CLINS prices and then totals them all up, consider asking USAF if they expect contractors to add the prices (e.g. in column G) and total them up? Or if there is an actual Schedule B we are supposed to use?

A schedule B that allows for entry of sub-CLIN prices is included as part of Amendment 0002.

PWS Task 2.1.25.2.2.1, WQ IWMP update task for JBER has no CLINS or Base/Option years listed in Tables 34/35 of the PWS nor any listed on the CLINS spreadsheet; what year(s) is this task expected to be awarded?

Work under this PWS task is to be performed under 2.1.25.2.2 Plan Update, SWMP (JBER).

PWS Task 2.1.12.1, the Tables 17 & 18 under PWS 2.1.12.1 show the periodic reports for Eielson AFB and JBER, but there is not currently a table for the PRSC/611th periodic reports; please provide a list/table with PRSC/611th periodic reports under this task or else please provide confirmation if no periodic reports are required/expected under this task.

The contractor is not required to complete the periodic reports for 611th under this task

PWS Task 2.1.13 AQ Recordkeeping/Air/Records Review states in the PWS specifically that it is for FY21 only (EAFB), but Table 34/35 of the PWS shows this as a Base and Optional Task in FY22, and the CLINS/Sub-CLINS spreadsheet shows this as occurring in Basic Tasks FY22, FY23, & FY24 (CLIN 0050 & sub-CLINS 0050AA, 0050AB, & 0050AC) and as an Optional Task in FY22 (CLIN 0089); please confirm whether this task is only planned for award in FY21 as noted in PWS, or if is planned for FY22, FY23, or FY24 awards.

PWS has been revised to fix error

The Base Support Letters for Eielson AFB, JBER, and PRSC (EAS, WIA, & KSA) do not appear to be included in the government furnished information (GFI) files; please provide these documents for use in estimated travel and lodging costs for site visits to these installations/facilities.

The contractor does not require Base Support Letters to obtain travel and lodging costs for EAFB and JBER as the contractor can use commercially available options. EAS, WIA, and KSA base support letters were included in the GFI.

In Section L of the solicitation, under 4.6 Factor 3: Management Approach, Project Manager is listed twice for Key Personnel. Is this a typo? Should we instead be providing a resume for a 4th Senior Environmental Scientist/Engineer? Or should we provide resumes for a primary and an alternate Project Manager?

The requirement for two project managers is not a typo. Designation of one as a prime and the other as an alternate is left to the determination of the Offeror.

87 Due to the COVID response and associated restriction, we would like to request an extension. A two day extension has been provided with Amendment 0002.

88 There does not appear to be a Section D in the solicitation package. Please clarify if there should be. There is no Section D for this requirement.

Section L and M are written for PBR/ORC type contracts, and not applicable to a compliance program fence-to-fence proposal. For instance, Section L, Section 4.4 Factor 1: Technical/Risk Approach first bullet after 2nd paragraph requests the following:

Provide a summary table including the following information for each site listed in the PWS: Installation, Performance Objective, Performance Period, Date of Achieving Performance Objective, and Brief Description of the Technical Approach. For proposal purposes, the Offeror may choose to group sites for which the Offeror is proposing the same technical approach. However, where the Offeror chooses to do group sites with regards to same technical approaches, the price information shall be provided on a per CLIN/sub-CLIN basis only.

This table is designed for PBR/ORC proposals to allow bidders to illustrate how they will optimize sites and accelerate them through the regulatory process. Please explain what is desired with this table in relation to the compliance POs presented in PWS Section 1.1.5. does the Government actually want contractors to list each installation and then repeat the PO listed in Section 1.1.5? Isn’t the Performance Period for all of the POs annual? Why do we need to illustrate this on a table then? How do we determine the date of achieving PO when they are ongoing and annual in nature? For instance, “PO4. Perform data management, audits, technical support, supplies, and reporting as required for the Hazardous Materials Program at each installation.” would be achieving the PO daily as we execute the tasks required to meet that PO. Finally, under a PBR/ORC proposal, a “Brief Technical Approach” could be as simple as “excavation and removal” or “ISCO program”, but for a compliance program, it can’t be summarized so simply to fit into a simply table. It would just read execute permit requirements or something along those lines.

A description of technical/risk approach is appropriate for all contracts. The government agrees that the language would benefit from some revision to better align with performance objectives listed in table 1 of the PWS. Section 1.1.7 of the PWS defines the period of performance for each task as one year from date of award. Section L, 4.4 sentence one has been revised to the following:

The Offeror shall submit a comprehensive technical approach that demonstrates achievement of the Performance Objectives in PWS Table 1: Performance Table in the Performance Period specified for each installation.

Section L, 4.4 bullet one has been revised to the following: "Summary Table: Provide a summary table including the following information for each performance objective in the PWS: Installation, Performance Objective, and Brief Description of the Technical Approach. For proposal purposes, the Offeror may choose to group installations for which the Offeror is proposing the same technical approach. However, where the Offeror chooses to do group installations with regards to same technical approaches, the price information shall be provided on a per CLIN/sub-CLIN basis only."

Questions/Answers

Section L, Section 4.4 Factor 1: Technical/Risk Approach, last sentence of 1st paragraph states we should classify each risk in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 1, Technical Risk Rating. Please provide this table or a reference to it’s location.

Referenced sentence has been removed.

Section L, Section 4.6 Factor 3: Management Approach, 3rd bullet indicates the Prime contractor must fill the Program Manager and Project Manager (singular), then states additional personnel can be filled by subcontractors, and then lists “Program Chemist and Public Affairs Officer”, neither of which is listed on Table 2 Minimum Labor Category Experience. Please clarify if both Project Managers listed under this section, Key Personnel Qualifications, and if the Program Chemist and PAO are required labor categories.

Program Chemist and Public Affairs Officer have been removed from referenced section. One of the two required project managers must be fulfilled by the Prime Contractor.

Section L, Section 4.4 Factor 1: Technical/Risk Approach, 2nd paragraph is designed for a PBR/ORC proposal such that a contractor identifies how we will monitor risks to achieving the proposed PO for each site being remediate. For example, ISCO injections are completed but monitoring doesn’t illustrate predicted reduction in contaminant levels, mitigation would require additional ISCO injections and further monitoring to maintain PO achievement schedule. It is unclear what information the Government is looking for from a compliance contract standpoint. Contractors will be completing compliance tasks nearly daily throughout the life of the contract, and risks of missing POs are not like those under PBR/ORC type scenario.

The referenced paragraph has been removed and replaced with the following: "The Offeror shall Identify potential risks associated with executing the performance objectives on Department of Defense Installations to include remote locations that may impact project schedule, budget, quality, overall success, and describe the process to be used for implementing measures to avoid these risks."

Section M, Factor 1, First paragraph appears to utilize language from PBR/ORC type contract including a requirement to explain how we will meet or exceed all POs and requirements while “reducing liability” and “minimizing Air Force life-cycle costs.” Are contractors responsible for reducing the Air Force liability for compliance programs and if so, how will this be evaluated? Similarly, how will the evaluation of minimizing life-cycle costs be handled? Are contractors expected to propose major program changes that will reduce the overall program costs?

Section M, Factor 1, end of First paragraph has been revised to as follows, "...Government evaluation of how all of the objectives and requirements in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and other applicable agreements will be met while, ensuring protection of human and ecological health andmaintaining regulatory compliance."

Section M, Factor 1 (b) bullet #2, indicates the IMS should demonstrate logical incorporation of realistic Government and Regulatory review periods as defined in the PWS. Please reference where in the PWS these review periods are presented?

The referenced bullet has been revised as follows: • Demonstrate logical incorporation of realistic Government and Regulatory review.

A further example of the PBR versus compliance evaluation issue is Section M, Factor 2, 3rd paragraph. This paragraph is directly taken from a PBR contract. Please explain how, on a compliance program, the contractor would reduce time to achieve the POs (presented in Section 1.1.5), reduce Life Cycle Cost as a result of implementation of optimization initiatives, or new/innovative technology. This PWS does not require a contractor to propose optimization strategies for the various compliance programs, nor technology solutions. We could propose much more advanced technology for Air Force compliance programs including SCADA systems, auto water samplers, etc. but that does not seem to be requested in the PWS, nor does it seem the Air Force would want to fund these changes without understanding if the regulatory community would accept them and ensuring they will meet regulatory requirements.

The referenced paragraph has been removed.

Section M, Factor 2, fourth bullet states proposed key personnel have experience successfully executing fence to fence contracts. Section L stresses Key personnel have worked on projects presented in proposal, and further stresses that Alaskan based projects will rank higher than others. There is only one Fence to Fence contract in Alaska currently, and therefore key personnel with Alaska based fence to fence experience will be very minimal.

Please advise what will be considered more important, Key Personnel who have worked on the Alaska based projects presented in the proposal, or Key Personnel who have fence to fence experience, likely from the Lower 48 contracts. Please consider removing the “fence to fence” language here.

Bullet referenced has been revised as follows: Proposed key personnel have experience successfully executing environmental compliance projects in the Air Quality Compliance Program, Hazardous Materials Program, Hazardous Waste Program, Petroleum Oil and Lubricants Program, and Water Quality Compliance Program (as specified in Table 1: Performance Requirements Summary of the PWS) on government installations (prime and subcontractors) to include remote locations resulting in achieving the POs within the original Performance Period.

CLIN Table B-1 for CLINs 0030 and 0045 reference PWS Para 2.1.24.1.3 & 2.1.24.1.3.1. The Main RFP does not contain these sections. Please clarify the proper sections to be referenced for these CLINs and if additional information was omitted from the main RFP.

Clin 30 has been revised to reference Para 2.1.24.1.1.1. Clin 45 has been revised to reference 2.1.24.1.1.3.

Factor 3 Management approach. Section 4.6, 6th bullet: “A description of how the Offeror successfully implemented the proposed remediation technologies on similar projects/sites submitted for Factors 2 and 4 of this solicitation”. Please explain how this bullet is relevant to this solicitation.

The 6th bullet has been revise to the following: • A description of how the Offeror successfully implemented the proposed environmental compliance technologies on similar projects/sites submitted for Factors 2 and 4 of this solicitation.

For clarification purpose can the Validity Statement (3.5) in Volume I be included in the cover letter with Volume I - 3.2 Contact Information. Yes. Table 2.2 has been revised to include Contact and Validity statement in the same row.

PWS 2.1.16 The Air Quality Task described in PWS 2.1.16 requires update of the Eielson AFB Fugitive Dust Control Plan, please provide a copy of the current (2001?) Eielson AFB Fugitive Dust Control Plan that will be updated under this task for review in support of this proposal. (Note that the GFI mentions the Eielson AFB Fugitive Dust Control Plan, but that file is just an email between AFCEC & the Eielson Air Manager, this is not the actual Fugitive Dust Plan – please provide this Plan.) Or please verify if this plan does not exist and the contractor must draft/prepare it from scratch.

The Fugitive Dust Control Plan was included with the GFI. See file: "Fugitive Dust Emissions Plan.pdf"

I opened the file to verify that it was the plan. Reattaching to this response in case the GFI sent out included an erroneous file.

PWS Section 2.1.35 Permits, Storage Tanks

PWS Section 2.1.35 Permits, Storage Tanks has no text associated with it. Please provide the scope of this task. There are no requirements under this section.

PWS Section 1.1.5, Table 1, Performance Objective 8 (PO8)

PWS Section 1.1.5, Table 1, Performance Objective 8 (PO8), states the objective is to "Provide [EMS] Program Support including planning and recordkeeping for JBER, Eielson, PSRC, and Clear installations." It then states under Performance Standard to "See applicable paragraphs in this PWS."

There are no direct Sections for this PO in the PWS. Please clarify this requirement.

An Environmental Management System (EMS) is a set of processes and practices that enable an organization to reduce its environmental impacts and increase its operating efficiency. The Contractor shall consider this when addressing all aspects of the PWS.

PWS Section 1.1.5, Table 1, PO8 PWS Section 1.1.5, Table 1, PO8 - Is this PO meant to capture all the permit management, planning, and recordkeeping requirements…