Amendment 0001 - Contractor Questions and Government Answers.pdf

# DOCUMENT SECTION CONTRACTOR QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 We respectfully request a 30 day extension of the proposal due date considering that drafts of Section L and M were not provided with the draft solicitation released in September 2019, the evaluation criteria are unlike criteria included in other USACE solicitations, a lot of the GFI was not previously available on the administrative record or provided by the government, and the GFI recently provided with release of the solicitation is taking a considerable amount of time to download as contractors are working remotely. An extension of the proposal due date will provide contractors a reasonable amount of time to review GFI and for the government to respond to inquiries regarding the GFI and needed clarification of the solicitation.

The proposal due date has been revised to 6 May 2020.

In the first paragraphs of Section L, the government states that questions can be asked until 1 April @ 2pm. There will be an additional question period with the posting of Amendment 0001.

Is the due date of 1 April 2020 for submittal of questions to the Government regarding the virtual site visit or is this also the due date for submittal of questions regarding GFI and the solicitation? Please clarify.

If this is the due date for all questions, to allow for time to review the GFI received, will the government please extend the date for asking questions to at least Monday April 6th?

3 As ProjNet Key has been set up for questions, how will the government be distributing questions and answers to the contractors? The Government shall distribute questions and answers to the Contractors through the USACE Contract Specialist.

4 B.08.02_Attachment_B-1_CLIN-Sub-CLIN_Structure.xlsx, B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf

CLINs 0004, 0007, 0008, 0009, The following are included as CLINs; however, they are not included in Table 1 of the solicitation. Complete Contractor Manpower Reporting (CLIN 0004), JBER Environmental Restoration Atlas and Wall Map (0007), Produce and update Land Use Control Management Plan (0008), Update JBER Community Involvement Plan (0009), Update Contractor's Guide (010). Please clarify the performance period and performance standard for each.

See revised PWS for additions to Table 1; however, not all requirements of the contract are in Table 1 and are included throughout the PWS.

5 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf Table 2.2 Proposal Organization

The table notes, "Up to 5 completed PPQs 4 pages." Please clarify that this is up to 5 PPQs and not a 4 page limit. Section L, table 2.2 has been revised for clarity. Up to 5 PPQs, up to 5 pages each.

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.

6 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf Table 2.2 Proposal Organization

Please clarify what is meant by the numbers in the column titled, "Electronic Submittal (via DOD Safe)." Section L table 2.2 has been revised to indicate one submission.

7 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf Section 2.3.2 The text state, "Prices shall be provided in whole-dollar amounts in both the hardcopy and electronic version of Schedule B of the RFP and in the MPS." Please clarify that a hard copy is not required.

A hard copy is not required. Section L, 2.3.2 has been revised to remove the reference to a hard copy.

8 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf PWS Please provide "Enclosure 2A – Administrative Record Spreadsheet," reference in 1.2 Overview of ORC Scope and Requirements. Enclosure 2A – Administrative Record Spreadsheet shall be provided with amendment.

Please clarify who are considered key personnel and if resumes are required for all of the key personnel included in Attachment L- 2.

Resumes are required for the following key personnel: Program Manager, Program Chemist, Senior Project Manager, Senior Engineers/Scientist (Toxicologist), Senior Engineers/Scientist (Chemist), Senior Engineers/Scientist (Environmental Engineer/Scientist), and Senior Engineers/Scientist (Geologist).

Section 4.6 of the Solicitation notes, "Prime Contractor: Program Manager, Senior Project Manager, Contracts Manager, Program QA/QC, and Program Health and Safety...Subcontractor: Program Chemist and Public Affairs Officer" and later in the same section the following are noted, "Program Manager, Program Chemist, Senior Project Manager, Senior Engineers/Scientist (Toxicologist), Senior Engineers/Scientist (Chemist), Senior Engineers/Scientist (Environmental Engineer), Senior engineers/scientist (Geologist)."

Section L, 4.6, 3rd bullet has been revised as follows:has been revised as follows: • Key personnel meeting the requirements identified in Attachment L-1. The following key personnel must be fulfilled by the Prime Contractor: Program Manager and Project Manager. The remaining key personnel may be fulfilled by a teaming partner or a specialized consultant/Subcontractor; however, they shall not be a second- or third-tier Subcontractor: Program Chemist and Public Affairs Officer.

Section M (page 312) notes, "Key personnel demonstrating applicable qualifications (as required in Section L, Attachment L-1) shall include: Program Manager, Program Chemist, Senior Project Manager, Senior Engineers/Scientist (Toxicologist), Senior Engineers/Scientist (Chemist), Senior Engineers/Scientist (Environmental Engineer/Scientist), and Senior Engineers/Scientist (Geologist). However, additional key personnel are included in B.08.02_Attachment_L- 2_Labor_Category_Qualifications_4_March_20.pdf.

Provide resumes as prescribed in section 4.6 for Key personnel

2 B.08.02_W911KB20R006.pdf Questions

B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf, B.08.02_Attachment_L- 2_Labor_Category_Qualifications_4_March_20.pdf

W911KB20R0006

Contractor Questions and Government Answers

10 B.08.02_W911KB2OR006.pdf, Attachment L-2 PPQ In Section L, Paragraph 5.6 a), the instructions say the PPQ forms should be sumbitted to Past Performance Evaluation Chair Donald Sumner. On the Attachment L-2 form itself, the instructions say that only if a client prefers, they may submit directly to Contract Specialist John McComas. In Section L, Paragraph 2.1.6, Table 2-2, the PPQs are to be submitted as per 5.6 and are alloted up to 4 pages each. Will the government please confirm that we do not need to submit these to the client directly and instead should be provided in Volume III.

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 John McComas 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.

11 B.08.02_W911KB2OR006.pdf Resumes In Section L, Parapraph 2.1.6, Table 2.2, the instructions says resumes are limited to 2 pages each and counted in the allotted 19 pages for Technical Factor 3--Management Approach. In Section L, Paragraph 2.4.6 resumes are listed as excluded from the page count. In Section L, Paragraph 4.6 Key Personnel, the instructions says resumes are limited to 3 pages each. Will the government please clarify if resumes are included in the page count and if there is a limit to the length of each resume.

Resumes are included in the page count. Resumes of Key Personnel: 2 pages each (14 pages total) indicated in the table is correct. Revised the referenced Section L

2.4.6 and paragraph 4.6 3 pages to 2.

12 B.08.02_W911KB20R006.pdf PWS Regarding section 8.1.1 (f), which states the contractor will be responsible for contaminants which become regulated under new or revised standards and this may be managed via modification. Will the government please confirm that a contract modification will be available to the contractor should new compounds become regulated or the currently promulgated standards for site-specific COCs decrease during the course of the POP?

Per 8.1.1.f. these changes MAY be managed via modification pending determination from the government that added the changes to the ORC is the best course of action.

13 PWS Section 52.211-11

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

Can the Government specify a liquidated damages dollar amount per day of delay? As this acquisition is contemplated to be one task order with multiple CLINs please clarify “the damages are to be decided by the contracting officer per task order”.

Liquidated Damages Clause has been removed from solicitation. This requirement is solicited under a Service NAICS as it is primarily Services with minimal (incidental) Construction aspects.

14 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf B.08.02_Attachment_B-1_CLIN-Sub-CLIN_Structure.xlsx

PWS Table 1 - p16 of 47 XE023 & XU022 Table 1 indicates performance through Year 5, yet SubCLIN Structure only identifies Year 2 with a projected award the Base Year.

Please clarify which Years are to be included and priced in the Proposal.

See revised Sub-CLIN structure.

15 B.08.02_Attachment_J-1_JBER_ORC_FY20_Enclosure_2_-_GFI_List_201911213.pdf GFI, Item 94 SS047 Final Field Activities

Report

SS047

Staged POL-waste soils containing TCE in 1cy Supersacks were reportedly anticipated for removal during the 2019 field season.

What is the status of their disposition?

They have not been removed. Their removal is not included in the ORC.

16 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf PWS Table 1 - p14 of 47, PWS Table 2 - p35 of 47

FR001 & FR002

Table 1 identifies "maintain" LTM in accordance with the approved ROD, however it appears the Proposed Plan remains at Draft Final stage. Also, the Transition of Work Table suggests the expected endpoint of the current contract is RI/FS and there is no information within the Virtual Site Visit. Was there an issue in continuing toward the ROD that this site is going back to the RI/FS stage? Is it the intent to "establish and initiate LUCs", which would also include placement of signage, while the ROD is being prepared and completed under a separate contract?

These sites have been deleted from the ORC.

17 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf PWS Table 2 - p35 of 47 DA121 What is the status and results of the final expected endpoint "Site Characterization" under existing contract? Is there GFI still forthcoming that has yet to be delivered? This information is needed to avoid duplication of effort and unnecessary funding for the next phase.

This site has been deleted from the ORC. The Final DA121 Site Characterization Report Jan 2020 has been posted to GFI.

18 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf PWS Table 2 - p35 of 47 SS124 What is the status and results of the final expected endpoint "Site Characterization" under existing contract? Is there GFI still forthcoming that has yet to be delivered? This information is needed to avoid duplication of effort and unnecessary funding for the next phase.

This site has been deleted from the ORC.

19 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf PWS Table 2 - p35 of 47, PWS Table 1 - p11 of 47

SS117

Transition of Work Table identifies a final expected endpoint of "Site Characterization" , but virtual site visit lists the site in RI/FS phase which better matches GFI (Focused RI/RA Management Plan and VI Addendum). Assuming all RI data collection efforts have been performed and the RI/RA Report will be finalized and accepted by FY21, the performance objective of signed ROD within 3 years seems unlikely considering regulatory concerns over existing PFAS/PFOA that are not yet currently being actively addressed.

Are we to assume that the FS will punt PFAS/PFOA to a separate decision path knowing that their presence likely affects accurate and complete FS remedy evaluations needed to efficiently move toward ROD?

Correct, cleanup PFOS/PFOA will be addressed under separate sites that are not included in the ORC. See Section 4.13.2 for waste management information.

20 B.08.02_Attachment_J-1_JBER_ORC_FY20_Enclosure_2_-_GFI_List_201911213.pdf GFI, Item 69 SS116 Phase 2 Letter

SS116

Did the Phase 2 field effort needed to further Site Characterization, as reported within GFI, get completed during the 2019 field season? If so, is there GFI still forthcoming that has yet to be delivered? This information is needed to optimize the technical approach/pricing for the RI phase proposal.

A modification to conduct the work has been awarded. The work has not been conducted.

21 B.08.02_Attachment_J-1_JBER_ORC_FY20_Enclosure_2_-_GFI_List_201911213.pdf GFI, Item 67 SS109 (F-22 Weapons Release Shop) Feasibility Study Report

(Draft)

SS109

GFI provides Draft FS (Dec 2108) but there is a Final version dated Sep 2019 available on ADEC's contaminated sites database. Is this an oversight, or was there a problem with Final approval?

The Final Feasibility Study SS109 - F-22 Weapons Release Shop, September 2019 has been posted to the GFI.

22 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf PWS Table 1 The performance objective for 1,4-dioxane is explicitly defined only for Site DA089. Please confirm that no further investigation/study for 1,4-dioxane is required at any other JBER site under the subject solicitation (with possible exception of Site SD015, where 1,4-dioxane assessment is included as part of Final Fifth Five-Year Review recommendation).

Additional investigation for DA089 is required because it did not occur during the original RI/FS. Evaluation of 1,4-dioxane in groundwater should be evaluated as a part of each of the individual RIs in this ORC and for SD015.

23 B.08.02_Attachment_J-1_JBER_ORC_FY20_Enclosure_2_-_GFI_List_201911213.pdf Final Fifth Five-Year Review, JBER-Elmendorf (JBER- E_cercla_final_feb_2020_02_ 07.pdf)

SD015

Table 12-3 of the Final Fifth Five-Year Review for JBER-Elmendorf states that "Perched aquifer; therefore, all other wells have been abandoned." We understand that that well OU6MW-17 was sampled in 2018 and well OU6MW-90 was sampled in 2009. Please confirm that well OU6MW-17 currently exists, and well OU6MW-90 has been abandoned.

Refer to the GFI, specifically annual reports and Tech Memo for SD15 Removal of OU6MW-18, to determine requirements.

24 Draft Limited Field Investigation Report, ST036, TU091 and SO552, dated June 2019 6.3.2 TU091 Based on the LFI Report and 2018 Annual Remedial Action-Operations and Monitoring Report for Select CERCLA Sites, groundwater contamination at TU091 may be a potential source or related to downgradient Slammer Avenue Plume. The LFI Report recommends that this relationship between groundwater plumes, as well as for potential upgradient sources, be investigated during the RI phase. If the RI shows that groundwater contamination from TU091 and Slammer Avenue and/or SS022 plumes are commingled, what overall boundary for TU091 should we assume for FS and ROD purposes?

The performance objective is RI. The purpose of the RI is to determine the nature and extent of contamination for TU091.

25 Draft Limited Field Investigation Report, ST036, TU091 and SO552, dated June 2019 6.3.2 TU091 The 2019 LFI Report states that due to the high concentration of PCBs in surface soil ( 120 mg/kg), an interim removal action is recommended to reduce the further spread of and potential for exposure to contamination. Is removal action part of the scope?

The performance objective is ROD and no interim action is required.

26 Draft Limited Field Investigation Report, ST036, TU091 and SO552, dated June 2019 Figure A-3.1 TU091 VOC sampling results from the 2018 LFI indicate a near surface source for various organic contaminants on the northern end of Bldg 8549. Can the government provide a description of current and historical activities at Bdlg 8549 which may be a source of contaminants detected above screening levels at the location of SB08? Maps of subgrade utility lines within and connecting to Bldg 8549 would also helpful.

The performance objective is ROD. Refer to GFI for background information.

27 Final UST Decommissioning and Site Evaluation - AFID 130-UO, Building 11-130, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska

Figure 3, 2.5 TU091 The 1999 UST decommissioning report provides a map of the former OWS and waste oil tank associated with site TU091.

However, the diagram and text narrative do not provide an indication of where wastewater discharge from the OWS was routed.

Can the government provide a description and maps of where the wastewater discharge from the removed system components and from the replacement OWS indicated to have been installed after the 1999 UST decommissioning? Were site activities after 1999 potentially a source of continuing TCE impact after the 1999 UST decommissioning?

The Site Characterization and Risk Evaluation Report TU091 (AFID 130-OU), Final, Jan 2016 has been posted to GFI.

28 Draft Limited Field Investigation Report, ST036, TU091 and SO552, dated June 2019 6.3.3 SO552 The 2019 LFI Report states that due to the high concentration of mercury in surface soil (10.2 mg/kg), an interim removal action is recommended to reduce the further spread of and potential for exposure to contamination. Is removal action part of the scope?

The performance objective is ROD and no interim action is required.

29 Draft Limited Field Investigation Report, ST036, TU091 and SO552, dated June 2019 6.3.3 SO552 The Draft 2019 LFI Report recommends that the pending RI for SO552 should determine if TCE contamination in groundwater associated with the site is impacted by or contributing to the ST37 plume. Although not mentioned in the LFI report, previous investigations have indicated the groundwater plume for CG111 may also be commingled with contamination originating at SO552. If the RI determines that there is no definable separation of the these plumes with respect to shared chemicals of potential concern, what are the boundaries that should be assumed for evaluation as part of the FS and to be included in the ROD for

SO552?

The perfornace objective is ROD. The RI will determine nature and extent of contamination.

30 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf PWS Table 1 CG703 The performance objective for CG703 includes Remedy in Place (RIP). The GFI includes Draft FS for CG703, dated December 2019.

Is the final FS available for review? If not, should we assume that the FS will be finalized prior to the start of the period of performance?

The Final FS is not available. The Final FS will become final when regulator comments are resolved.

31 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf PWS Table 1 CG703 - The performance objective for CG703 includes Remedy in Place (RIP). The GFI includes Draft FS for CG703, dated December 2019. The Draft FS does not include discussion of proposed remedy. What should we assume as the selected remedy for CG703? Does the Air Force have agreement with regulatory agencies on the selected remedy for CG703?

No, since there is not a ROD for CG703, an approved remedy has not been selected or approved. It is up to the Contractor to utilize the information provided to propose an approach to achieve the performance objective of RIP in a manner that will be approved by the AF, USACE, and Regulator.

32 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf PWS Table 1 CG703 - The performance objective for CG703 includes Remedy in Place (RIP). If the selected remedy includes excavation and backfilling with clean fill, does the Air Force plan to provide the source for clean backfill material on-base? If yes, how far from the CG703 is this backfill material source located?

No.

33 B.08.02_Attachment_B-1_CLIN-Sub-CLIN_Structure.xlsx, B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf

PWS Table 1 AT035, SS013 and TU117 In Attachment B-1 – Sub-CLIN structure, the Proposed Plans for AT035 and SS013 are to be awarded in Option Years in FY22 and FY21, respectively. In Table 1 of the PWS, the performance period for AT035 and TU117 is 4 years whereas SS013 is 3 years. If all three sites are to be included in the same ROD, please confirm that the performance periods in Table 1 and the option year awards for AT035, SS013 and TU117 are correct.

See revised PWS and Sub-CLIN structure.

34 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf PWS Table 1 CG703 The performance objectives for CG703 includes RIP, and upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O through Year 5. For consistency between different bidders and due to uncertainties related to regulatory review schedules, can the Government consider providing a definitive number of years for RA-O for bidding purposes.

The Contractor should bid on each Sub-CLIN structure as provided.

35 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf PWS Table 1 CG703 and CG704 In the responses to EPA comments on the Draft Fifth Five Year Review, the Air Force stated that remedies for CG703 and CG704 will be selected in a ROD Amendment and/or ESD to the OU1 ROD. CG703 and CG704 are at a different phases of site investigation. For CG703, draft FS is in-place; however, for CG704 RI still needs to be completed. Please confirm that the Air Force intends to present the selected remedies for CG703 and CG704 in a single ROD Amendment and/or ESD to the OU1 ROD.

Yes.

36 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf 6.4 Submission of Complete Schedule B

Please provide Attachment L-3 to the RFP, which is referenced in the following text, "Sub-CLINs will be utilized IAW the attached sub-CLIN structure as well as IMS and MPS Guidance provided as Attachment L-3 to the RFP."

Section L, section 6.4 has been revised to state: Sub-CLINs will be utilized IAW the attached sub-CLIN structure as well as IMS and MPS Guidance provided in the PMP Guidance provided as Attachment L-3 to the RFP

37 B.08.02_Attachment_J-1_JBER_ORC_FY20_Enclosure_2_-_GFI_List_201911213.pdf GFI, Item 56 OWS Closure After Action

Report

OW118

Please provide accompanying appendices

Requested appendices will be provided in B.08.02 W911KB20R0006 (Draft 3-11- 2020).pdf.

38 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf, B.08.02_Attachment_B-1_CLIN-Sub-CLIN_Structure.xlsx

Sub-CLIN 0006CG JBER ESF Please confirm that Year 6 (0006CG) for the JBER ESF is within the POP. If the transition period is for CY2020 and YR1 (Base Year) is CY2021, wouldn't Year 6 be for CY2026?

See PWS for definition of Transition Period.

39 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf, B.08.02_Attachment_B-1_CLIN-Sub- CLIN_Structure.xlsx

PWS Table 1, CLIN 0066 DA089 In Table 1, will the government consider providing only one performance period for completing both the RI and the ROD for DA089 (CLIN 0066)? Or should 0066AC be awarded the base yr, rather than upon Completion of 0066AB?

Table 1 indicates that the Supplemental RI for 1,4-dioxane has a performance period of Two (2) Years, ROD-A to address the Five- Year Review recommendation has a Performance Period of Four (4) years, and Implementation of the revised remedy based on the ROD-A within the POP. If 0066AC (Achieve ROD-A) is not awarded until completion of 0066AB (Achieve Supplemental RI Report for 1,4-dioxane) in Year 2 and has a performance period of Four (4) years that would extend 0066AC into Year 6 and 0006AD (Achieve Implementation of Revised Remedy) beyond the POP. Please clarify the Projected Award Dates for 0066AC and 0066AD.

In section 1.2 of the PWS it states that the performance period specified in Table 1 starts from the Obligation Date of the first Sub-Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) for the site unless otherwise specified, so the four year duration to achieve the ROD-A is from the award of the Supplemental RI Management Plan rather than the start of the ROD-A Sub-CLIN

40 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf 2.3.2 (Price Information), Section 4.4 (Factor 1:

Technical/Risk Approach)

In Section 4.4, please clarify what is meant by quantitative estimates in the following text, "Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance." Section 2.3.2 Price Information indicates, "All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal Volume (Volume IV)."

Section L, 4.4 has been revised to remove reference to quantitative estimates.

41 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf Table 2.2 Proposal Organization

Will the government please consider allowing for more than 50 pages for the technical approach, considering there are 85 CLINs and 75 sites?

No.

42 B.08.02_W911KB20R0006.pdf, B.08.02_Attachment_B-1_CLIN-Sub- CLIN_Structure.xlsx

Page 2 Text on page 2 indicates that 76 Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites and three (3) Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites are included. However, 75 sites are included in Attachment B-1. Please confirm the number of sites.

See revised PWS.

43 PWS Site DA121 Will DA121 still be included in this PWS with a PO of RI/FS?

ADEC web page contains a letter from ADEC dated 03 March 2020 that includes the following : “Based on the information provided to date, it has been determined that the contaminant concentrations remaining on site do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environmental and no further remedial action will be required unless new information becomes available that indicates residual contaminant may pose an unacceptable risk.”

This site has been deleted from the ORC. The Final DA121 Site Characterization Report Jan 2020 has been posted to GFI.

44 Please clarify the anticipated Notice to Proceed date for the Base Year and Transition Period. Will they both be with contract award?

The anticipated award date for the Base Year and Transition Period is with contract award pending availability of funds.

45 For the purposes of developing the IMS, will the governement provide an estimated award/NTP date? The Notice to Proceed will be at award.

46 Due to the number of CLINS, can the IMS be presented in two different files? The first would contain CLINS 1-40 and the second would contain clins 41-85. Microsoft Project will become unstable and possibly stop function if all CLINS we in one file.

The proposed methodology is acceptable to the Government. If possiible, name files to distinguish the CLINS contained within the file.

47 For CLIN 0003, are monthly payment milestone allow under each subclin? Yes.

48 Please clarify where to include proposal items listed in section 3.1 Volume Organization for Volume I on page 294 of the RFP, but not included in the instructions for this volume or the overall proposal organization in Table 2.2 on page 288 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.

49 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 288, “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.

50 Table 2.2 Proposal Organization indicates resumes are limited to 2 pages not including evidence of relevant professional certifications; however, the instructions on page 300 indicate resumes can be 3 pages. Please clarify how many pages are allowed for each resume and for the overall Section 4.6.

Resumes are included in the page count. Resumes of Key Personnel: 2 pages each (14 pages total) indicated in the table is correct. Revised the referenced Section L

2.4.6 and paragraph 4.6 3 pages to 2.

51 In Volume III section 5.1 Volume Organization on RFP page 301, 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.

52 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, there is no page limit for items in the Volume organization associated with section 6.1.

53 Reference RFP Volume III Factor 2 Corporate Experience and Factor 4 Past Performance: In accordance with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruling in favor of allowing the evaluation of experience to consider past performance information regarding affiliated companies, and FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), which allows the evaluation to consider key personnel who have relevant experience, would the Government please consider use of sister subsidiary performance in evaluation of this proposal? If so, we request amending the solicitation for use of sister performance and clarifying where we can provide further explanation of meaningful involvement of key personnel and past performance of sister subsidiaries.

Section 4.6 states • Key personnel meeting the requirements identified in Attachment L-1. The following key personnel must be fulfilled by the Prime Contractor: Program Manager and Project Manager. The remaining key personnel may be fulfilled by a teaming partner or a specialized consultant/Subcontractor;

however, they shall not be a second- or third-tier Subcontractor. Section 4.5 states At least three (3) of the five (5) example projects must be from the Prime Contractor.

Include the exact same contract/TO summaries in the volume for Factor 4, Past Performance. Sister subsidiary involvement of key personnel may be considered for key personnel other than the Program Manager and Project Manager as prescribed.

Past performance of sister subsidiaries may be considered for 2 of the 5 past performance projects as prescribed.

54 For submittal, please clarify if the government intends for proposers to upload ZIP folders with all proposal files in Word and PDF, separated by volume or if proposers should upload each volume as a single PDF with specific files in Word for just the Master Table of Contents.

Paragraph 2.3.9.a.ii has been revised.

55 Enclosure 2, GFI list: The June 2015 Limited Site Investigation Report FT023 (Fire Training Area) was not included, nor was it located on the administrative record or the ADEC website. Will this report be provided to bidders as GFI?

Limited Site Investigation Report FT023 (Fire Training Area), Final, Jun 2015 has been posted to GFI.

56 Enclosure 2, GFI list: The January 2019 draft for the Five-Year Review for JBER-E was listed. Will a more recent version of the FYR (draft or final) be provided to bidders as GFI?

Final (but not-yet-signed) JBER-E CERCLA Five-Year Review, Feb 2020 has been posted to GFI.

57 Section l, Section 4.4: Offerors are instructed to “provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance.” The system for quantitatively estimating risks is not defined. Would USACE consider removing the requirement for a quantitative estimate of risk impacts, as long as the impacts on cost, schedule, and performance are assessed qualitatively?

Section L, 4.4 has been revised to remove reference to quantitative estimates.

58 Section l, Table 2.2: The technical/risk approach (Factor 1) is limited to 50 pages. However, a total of 75 (as noted in the presentation, however 73 are included in the sub-CLIN table) sites are included in the PWS, meaning that the comprehensive technical approach is limited to about two-thirds of a page per site, on average. The page count does not appear adequate to allow offerors to clearly show how they will meet requirements and demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Would USACE consider changing the page limit for Factor 1 (technical / risk approach) to 110 pages, for an average of one and a half pages per site?

No.

59 Site CG539 remains in the final CLIN Sub-CLIN document as requiring LTM, but the most recent Site Characterization Report (USAF 2015 – see reference below) and the ADEC CS Database (ADEC 2015 – see link below) both clearly state that no further monitoring for this site is necessary. Please clarify if this site requires LTM or LUC/IC inspection. - USAF 2015 (June). Site Characterization Report CG539 (ST507), Environmental Restoration Program, Final.

ADEC 2015 - https://dec.alaska.gov/Applications/SPAR/PublicMVC/CSP/SiteReport/24004 <Blockedhttps://dec.alaska.gov/Applications/SPAR/PublicMVC/CSP/SiteReport/24004>

Refer to GFI and PWS Table 3.

60 B.08.02+Attachment+L-1+Reference Past Performance Quality Questionnaire Form and proposal Factor 2 Corporate Experience: In the 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.” 1) Where in the proposal should offerors include these documents? 2) Please specify if there is a page limit? 3) We respectfully request this requirement be added to Section L, 5.0 VOLUME III PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 4).

Volume III - Recognition Documents has been added to Section L, 2.4.6. Recognition Documents are now referenced in table 2.2, volume 3 - 5.6.

61 RFP, page 304 paragraph 6.5 Submission of MPS with Price: Attachment L-3 is missing from the solicitation package, please provide Attachment L-3 so the offeror can complete the required MPS.

IMS and MPS Guidance provided in the PMP Guidance provided will be provided as Attachment L-3 to the RFP.

62 Due to the large number of sites and the complexity of this type of proposal, coupled with the challenges of getting GFI, we request an extension of the submission due date of at least three weeks, commensurate with response times for other ORCs.

The proposal due date has been revised to 6 May 2020.

63 Will the Government establish a ProjNet site for RFI or should all questions be directed through the Contracting Specialist? The Government shall distribute questions and answers to the Contractors through the USACE Contract Specialist.

64 Section L, 4.6 – Key Personnel Qualification: States that resumes will be no more than 3 pages, in Section L Table 2.2, Proposal Organization states that resumes will be 2 pages each. Please clarify.

Resumes are included in the page count. Resumes of Key Personnel: 2 pages each (14 pages total) indicated in the table is correct. Revised the referenced Section L

2.4.6 and paragraph 4.6 3 pages to 2.

65 Section L, 2.2 – Proposal Organization and 2.3.8 – Proposal Copies. Please confirm that the offeror should upload multiple copies of the electronic volumes to DoD Safe (as specified in 2.2).

Upload 1 document. Section L table 2.2 has been revised.

66 Section L, 4.4, Factor 1: Technical/Risk Approach - Should the MPS without costs in Factor 1 have the percentages of the Sub-CLIN amount included?

Yes.

67 Please confirm that the Project Summaries submitted in Factor 2 should be submitted in the same format in Factor 4 as Past Performance Information Sheets.

Reference ITO Paragraph number column listed for requirements.

68 Section L, 4.4, Factor 1: Technical/Risk Approach. The ITO states, “Classify each risk in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1, Technical Risk Rating.” Are these the same Section M, Table 2?

The tables contained in Section M are the same. They have been pulled from the DoD Source Selection Procedures

69 Are there promulgated standards for PFAS compounds in water and soil (potential IDW) in Alaska and, if so, has the AF Office of General Counsel approved their use?

Refer to Section 8.1.1 of the PWS

Have specific sites at JBER been identified with PFAS contamination and requiring IDW management of PFAS compounds in accordance with the AF waste management guidance (AFGM2019-32-01)? If so, please list those sites.

Refer to Section 4.13.2 of the PWS.

71 Is sampling for 1,4-dioxane required at JBER per Attachment C-7? If so, please provide a list of sites Evaluation of 1,4-dioxane in groundwater should be evaluated as a part of each of the individual RIs in this ORC.

72 Will the LTM sites include monitoring well maintenance or replacement of damaged wells? Refer to Section 8.1.1 of the PWS.

73 Is it appropriate to delineate extent of contamination for the migration to groundwater pathway using site-specific values developed with the ADEC Method 3 calculator? Hydrogeological information is available for the sites in the existing RI reports, and the proposed site-specific values would be provided for regulatory review in the Supplemental RI work plan. Or should extent of contamination in an RI be delineated to Method 2 values?

Site Characterization Work Plan and Reporting Guidance for Investigation of Contaminated Sites says proposed cleanup levels should be included in the work plan, if a RP proposed to delineate to a Method 3 MTGW cleanup level and provided the information necessary to validate the Method 3 CUL (and the variables changed were due to site-specific parameters like hydraulic conductivity, FOC, etc.), AF and ADEC may approve it, provided there wasn’t a lower Human Health or eco number that should be delineated to instead. If it is proposed to delineate to Method 3, and the AF/ADEC disagrees that the adequate information needed to develop that alternate cleanup level was attained, Contractor may need to default to Method 2.

74 Instructions to offerors, Volume II, Factor 3, Management Approach. Please consider excluding the Organizational Chart from the very limited page count for this volume.

Each bulleted item should be included as prescribed. Organizational charts may demonstrate more than one bulleted item. Table 2.2 has been revised from 5 pages to 6 in the referenced section. Total page count for technical factor 3 has been revised to 20 pages.

75 Instructions to offerors, Volume II, Factor 3, Management Approach. Please clarify where to include the IMS and MPS without cost in the volume organizational information.

An IMS and MPS is not included in Volume II Factor 3. It is included in Volume II, section 4.4 Factor 1 - Technical/Risk Approach.

76 Instructions to offerors, Section 3.1 and Section 3.4. Section 3.1, Volume Organization, item c) is the Standard Proposal Information, which section 3.4 states is the Master Table of Contents, the Volume 1 Table of Contents, and a Glossary. Section 3.1 then lists these again in items g) through j). Please clarify where these items should be included.

Reference to standard proposal information has been removed from Section L. 3.1.

77 It is unclear what the actual RA-O requirements are for sites ST036, SD025 and ST048. What are the current RA-O requirements for sites? There doesn’t appear to be any documents in the GFI that include these sites, other than one site investigation report. Can you please provide the most recent groundwater monitoring reports for these sites?

Refer to GFI PWS Table 3: Sampling Transition Table for SD025 and ST048 requirements. Refer to the revised PWS for the requirement change for ST036.

78 For the PPQs required in the RFP, please clarify where and how PPQ forms are to be submitted. The instructions in the RFP indicate PPQ forms are to be sent directly to Donald Sumner; however, the form itself indicates completed PPQs are to be submitted with offeror’s proposal or to John McComas. Additionally, Donald Sumner is with the Sacramento District, so please confirm that this is the correct recipient for these PPQs.

Section L Paragraph 5.6 changed to reference John McComas.

79 For the Health and Safety Manager position, would the government consider accepting certification and experience in lieu of a degree?

No.

80 Please clarify what key staff the government wants to see included in this proposal. The instructions to proposers in Section L lists different key staff than the Attachment L-2 Labor Category Qualifications. The current key staff requirements do not include positions for task managers who would be responsible for managing the 72 IRP and 3 MMRP sites included in this PWS. Would the government consider amending the key staff to include the critical task manager role or aligning the key staff in Section L with the key staff in Attachment L-2?

Key personnel will remain as prescribed in Section L, 4.6: Program Manager, Program Chemist, Senior Project Manager, Senior Engineers/Scientist (Toxicologist), Senior Engineers/Scientist (Chemist), Senior Engineers/Scientist (Environmental Engineer/Scientist), and Senior Engineers/Scientist (Geologist).

81 In the GFI files provided the file named “2017 Letter Report JBER IC Inspections (Flat File).pdf” is only a distribution letter. Can the complete report be provided?

GFI has been updated.

82 Site DA121 – JBER-Richardson (Item No. 0068) has a performance objective of achieve RI/FS. Based on the information available on the ADEC Contaminated Sites Database the Site Characterization resulted in a Cleanup Complete Determination, which ADEC issued on 4 March 2020. Should proposals still include an RI/FS for DA121?

This site has been deleted from the ORC. The Final DA121 Site Characterization Report Jan 2020 has been posted to GFI.

83 Sites DA119 and DA122 (orphan drum sites) – The virtual site visit says “RI/FS (Optional); site characterization is ongoing under an open task order.” What is the current status of these sites? Will additional documents be made available to bidders with the current characterization data?

Current status is sites are under going site characterization. GFI has been updated.

84 Site SS090 – The sub-CLINs 0077AA and 0077AB state that a Supplemental RI should be conducted at SS090; however, the available information for that site does not indicate a need for a Supplemental RI. Can additional data be provided to evaluate the scope of the Supplemental RI?

The performance objective is RI. The purpose of the RI is to determine the nature and extent of contamination for SS090. Final Hydrant Replacement Reports have been posted to GFI.

85 Site SS124 – Based on a recent entry in the ADEC Contaminated Sites Database dated 18 March 2020 it appears that a work plan addendum has been submitted for SS124. Can USACE clarify what work is covered in that addendum to better inform what is needed for the RI/FS?

This site has been deleted from the ORC.

86 As of 2018, the RA-O/LTM sites were divided into three reports; State sites, CERCLA sites, and IC Inspections (Letter Report). Will these sites continue to be divided into three report or consolidated into the two reports for State and CERCLA sites?

The installation prefers two reports. IC inspection results should be included in annual State site report or annual CERCLA site report as appropriate.