Amendment 0002 - Contractor Questions and Government Answers.pdf

# Document Questions/GFI Request Answer 1 GFI If available, please provide a copy of the following document that was not provided as GFI: F-22 Weapons Release

Shop SVE Installation and Stockpile Construction (2012).

This document is not available electronically. Report 2013 SVE System After-Action Report F-22 Weapons Release Shop, Nov 2014, which includes a description of the system, figures, and photographs, has been posted to GFI.

2 Section L, 5.6 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) (page 353) and PPQ, Attachment L-2 (page 360)

Please confirm that submittal of PPQs directly to the Contract Specialist is not required.

In Section L, 5.6 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) (page 353) it states, "Offerors shall ensure that the information is submitted directly to the Contract Specialist, John McComas, John.L.Mccomas@usace.army.mil. The PPQ form is included as Attachment L-2 to this solicitation."

However, in the PPQ, Attachment L-2 (page 360), it states, "Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal...If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, John McComas via email at John.L.Mccomas@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date."

Section L paragraph 5.6 edited.

3 GFI WP014: The last line of Page 136 of the Final Fifth-Year Review states “The following issue was identified during this FYR that does not affect the protectiveness of the remedy at WP014.” However no specific issue is presented after this text. Please clarify if the issue was inadvertently deleted.

The sentence on Page 136 was part of a template and should have been deleted.

4 PWS For Sites XU022 (CLIN0080) and XE023 (CLIN0081) Table 1 of the PWS indicates a performance objective of LTM in accordance with the approved ROD with a Performance Period of through Year 5 for each site and the associated initial Sub-CLIN for each site indicates projected award in Option Year FY21. Is the ORC contractor expected to perform annual LUC inspection for these sites, and if so will the sub-CLIN structure be revised to reflect this?

Refer to the GFI.

5 PWS Can you clarify the scope of the modification noted in response to question 20 regarding Site SS116? Will this modification affect the transition of work information summarized in Table 2 of the PWS?

Regarding question 20, SS116 is included in a task order with other sites. Other sites require field work in 2020. No further field work is scheduled for SS116. Pre-Draft SS116 – ALCOM Building 9480 Exterior Alcove Contamination Site Characterization Report , Mar 2020 was added to the GFI previously. The modification resulted in a PoP change that applies to the other sites. See revised

PWS

6 PWS The Pre-Draft Site Characterization Report of SS116 indicates that No Further Action is recommended for original source area for SS116 but indicates that separate upgradient VOC contamination be included in a RI/FS. Please confirm whether it is the AF's intent to investigate VOCs in groundwater as a part of SS116?

The performance objective is RI/FS. The purpose of the RI is to determine the nature and extent of contamination for SS116.

7 PWS For OW118, the Site Characterization is to begin this field season under separate contract and is not expected to reach final endpoint until May 2023. This Transition significantly limits the window to complete RI/FS. Is it the plan for the Government to award this Optional task order well ahead of this date and deliver to the selected Contractor the Draft SC Report to provide adequate time to complete the full performance scope?

OW118 is included in a task order with other sites that are not included in the ORC. The Government anticipates that the work at OW118 will be completed before May 2023 and will award this optional task if time allows within the period of performance.

8 PWS Table 2 in the PWS indicates the final expected end point for Site OW118 to be Site Characterization with a POP end date of 5/25/2023. Can the AF please provide information regarding the scope of the planned site characterization and the projected date for completion of the Draft Site Characterization Report under this contract?

OW118 is included in a task order with other sites that are not included in the ORC. The Government anticipates that the work at OW118 will be completed before May 2023 and will award this optional task if time allows within the period of performance.

9 Reference: RFP, Factor 1 Technical / Risk Approach. The RFP states on Page 348 “Propose realistic risk mitigations strategies and contingency plans that will eliminate or reduce risk(s) to an acceptable level.”

Question: What level of risk does the Government consider acceptable? .

See Section M Table 2 - Technical Risk Descriptions.

Amendment 0002 - ORC at JBER ALASKA - QUESTIONS 04.23.2020

10 Sampling requirements were previously requested for CG543, TU107, ST048 and SD025. The answer provided by the government referred us to Table 3 and subsequently to the 2019 Annual Monitoring of State-Regulate Sites Report.

This report does not maintain information for these sites. Please confirm the location of the sampling requirements for these sites.

Summary of SD015 Limited Site Assessment, January 2012 has been posted to the GFI.

11 Site DP098 - The Pre-Draft 2018 Annual RA-O and Monitoring Report, CERCLA Sites, Section 2.4 for DP098 references a DNAPL report in the recommendations section. We request this report be provided as GFI to assist in the proposed Data Gap analysis.

Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Evaluation Report DP098 , April 2018 has been posted to the GFI.

12 When does the government intend to provide the request code to upload proposals to the DoD SAFE site? Can the government provide an alternate submission method as well in case DoD SAFE is experiencing upload issues on the submission date?

DoD Safe Instructions are posted with Amendment 0002. Due to the uncertainity in today's environment, the Government feels this is the most prudent method for proposal submissions. The Government will be monitoring DoD Safe on RFP due date for functionality. The Government encourages the contractor to plan accordingly so that their proposals are submitted prior to due date and time.

13 Please clarify what the government requires in order to respond to section 3.5 Validity Statement on page 346 of amendment 0001 with regard to ability to provide bonding. The RFP states, “The cover letter shall include the Offeror’s ability to provide bonding for the proposed construction costs and confirm proposal validity for 180 days after the suspense date for proposals.” Is the government asking for proof of bonding capacity or a “good guy” letter that the offeror can provide bonding as needed for this contract?

Section L paragraph 3. 5 paragraphs a) and b) have been edited.

14 The conformed copy of Amendment 0001 solicitation instructions provides fill in sections for Section I in duplicate, but with differences – the first instance on PDF pgs. 32 to 38 OR bottom of page 32 with Amendment 0001 in header and second instance on PDF pages 317 to 329 or Pg. 192 with Amendment 0001 in header. Please clarify which Section I set to use in the final proposal.

The SF30 pages 1 through 39 on Amendment 0001 only shows changes that happened to the solicitation and are not the entire solicitation. The conformed copy is the entire solicitation which begins on page 40 and goes through page 423. This includes not changed sections with changed items incorporated in the applicable sections. The clauses you are questioning were updated in the FAR, and becuase this solicitation is still active, they were revised to include the most up to date language. For proposals, please use the section I contained in the conformed copy. Amendment 0002 includes changes as well so please use the most recent copy posted.

15 Page 6 of the PDF states that CLIN 0053 (and the associated sub-CLINs) have been re-numbered to CLIN 0101 and that the CLIN description Site – ST036 – JBER-Elmendorf has been deleted. CLIN 0101 (and the associated sub-CLINs) starting on PDF 211 page does not include a description. The Excel version of the sub-CLIN lists Site ST036 as CLIN 0052 with the objective of “Achieve Risk Assessment, Feasibility Study, and Conceptual Site Model Update”. Please confirm that the PDF (page 32) lists the correct CLIN number (0052) and performance objectives (“Achieve Risk Assessment, Feasibility Study, and Conceptual Site Model Update”) for Site ST036.

The PDF (page 32) lists the correct CLIN number (0052) and performance objectives (“Achieve Risk Assessment, Feasibility Study, and Conceptual Site Model Update”) for Site ST036.

16 Site DP098 – The performance goal for this site is “Achieve Data Gaps Study to address the Five-Year Review Recommendation.” The second recommendation for the final (unsigned) JBER-E Five-Year Review includes the following statement, “New treatment technologies to address the plume migration should be explored”. Please confirm if the Data Gap Study should or should not address that recommendation? And if so, to what extent is the USAF expecting those technologies to be explored?

Data Gaps Studies should determine if a data gap does or does not exist. If the contractor determines that a data gap exists while completing the Data Gap Study, the contractor would be expected to evaluate and recommend new treatment technologies as described in Section 8.9 of the PWS.

17 Sites LF004 and WP014 – One of the recommendations for these two sites in the final (unsigned) JBER-E Five-Year Review states, “Conduct additional studies to optimize an approach to achieve remediation goals. Other studies may include, but are not limited to: site characterization, ecological assessment, focused feasibility studies, groundwater modeling, treatability studies, and/or sampling. Groundwater cleanup timelines should be reestablished”. Should this recommendation be considered part of the performance objective of “Achieve Data Gaps Study to address the Five-Year Review Recommendation”?

Data Gaps Studies should determine if a data gap does or does not exist. If the contractor determines that a data gap exists while completing the Data Gap Study, the contractor would be expected to evaluate and recommend new treatment technologies.

18 Site ST037 – Two of the recommendations in the final (unsigned) JBER-E Five-Year Review state:

a. “When data evaluation is complete, prepare a treatability study proposing focused treatment based on results of the site characterization activities to prevent off-site migration of contaminated groundwater, remediate areas of saturated and smear zone soils, and reduce concentrations in the plume to expedite cleanup to ROD established levels. Groundwater cleanup timelines should be reestablished using groundwater modeling.”

b. “Optimize the early warning, sentry, and groundwater monitoring well network as recommended in the 2016 Annual Remedial Action-Operations and Monitoring Report for Select CERCLA Sites (USAF, 2018c).”

Please confirm if these recommendations are to be considered part of the performance objective of “Achieve Data Gaps Study to address the Five-Year Review Recommendation.”

Data Gaps Studies should determine if a data gap does or does not exist. If the contractor determines that a data gap exists while completing the Data Gap Study, the contractor would be expected to evaluate and recommend new treatment technologies.

20 Please provide a summary of the Air Force objective(s) associated with the Supplemental RI/FS planned for Site FT023 and SD015 (Hypothetical examples being: Supplemental RI to fully delineate the vertical and lateral extent of COCs in groundwater for the entire site, address FYR recommendations, delineate CoCs in groundwater between well X and well Y, Supplemental RI of 1,4-dioxane, etc.)?

The performance objective for FT023 and SD015 is RI/FS. The purpose of the RI is to determine the nature and extent of contamination.

21 Please provide the “Final Limited Site Investigation Report for Site FT023 (Fire Training Area), June 2015”, as it does not appear to have been provided in the GFI and is not available on the AR website.

Refer to the GFI.

22 Please provide the “Summary of SD15 Limited Site Assessment Report, January 2012”, as it does not appear to have been provided in the GFI and is not available on the AR website.

Summary of SD015 Limited Site Assessment , January 2012 has been posted to the GFI.

23 FINAL VAPOR INTRUSION STUDY REPORT FOR JOINT BASE ELMENDORF–RICHARDSON RESTORATION PROGRAM SITES, ALASKA (June 2018) investigated 30 JBER Buildings and identifies 25 Buildings with either Complete or Potentially Complete VI pathways. Only 1 building exceeded a target risk and 1 building exceeded an EPA Response Level; nevertheless, the report concludes that additional study may be warranted at the 25 buildings with complete or potentially complete pathways. The report also notes that the VI study did not address all buildings overlying VOC sources and that separate investigations were underway to evaluate VI at other JBER sites/buildings.

1) Are the results or status of the referenced separate investigations for other JBER buildings available?

2) Are (or have) the recommendations from the June 2018 VI Report being implemented? If not, are the recommendations expected to be implemented under the ORC?

3) Is long term monitoring of indoor air at buildings with a complete VI pathway anticipated under the ORC?

4) Are additional VI investigations of buildings with complete or potentially complete pathways anticipated under the ORC?

5) Is Indoor Air monitoring at buildings with complete VI Pathways expected to be incorporated into the ROD amendments identified in the PWS?

6) For sites where no ROD/DD amendment is identified in the PWS, is an ESD expected under the ORC to address VI at buildings with complete or potentially complete pathways?

The contractor is not required to implement the recommendations of the VI study but should use the VI Study Report as a reference document when conducting vapor intrusion investigations as part of RI or RI/FS performance objectives.