B.08 Amendment 2_PWS update with Questions and Answers.pdf

W911KB21R0045

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to update the PWS and add the initial question set.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 35

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Jul-2021

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W911KB21R0045

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Jun-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

21-Jul-2021

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, AK

CEPOA-CT (W911KB)

PO BOX 6898

JBER AK 99506-0898

W911KB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 11 00 - STANDARD FORM (SF) 1442

The required response date/time has changed from 21-Jul-2021 02:00 PM to 05-Aug-2021 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

The following have been added by full text:

INITIAL QUESTION SET

Initial questions received for W911KB21R0045 PFAS Soil Disposal at Eielson AFB:

When there are multiple questions within a question set, the letter “o” will not be used as a designator.

1) Is there an estimate range for this work?

ANSWER: This is not a construction project, therefore there is not an estimate range.

2) This solicitation is restricted to disposal at a RCRA approved class C or D solid waste landfill (as appropriate) for disposal. Will the government consider thermal treatment as an option?

ANSWER: No

3) Factor 3: Relevant Experience: At least 3 projects of similar magnitude and comparable logistical or regulatory complexity.

This RFP is limited to PFAS. PFAS is relatively new. To the best of our knowledge there have not been other projects of similar magnitude…..

What is the Governments position/intent related to similar magnitude……?

ANSWER: Similar magnitude would refer to dollar value ($5-15M) and/or volume of contaminated material (regardless of contaminant type).

4) I am hoping to find out if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing these services, if similar services have been performed in the past, or if this is a new requirement.

If this is a follow-on requirement, could you please provide the previous contract or task order number?

ANSWER: There is not an incumbent contractor currently performing these services, this is not a follow-on and this is a new requirement.

5) The contract documents do not address or are vague on the following positions.

5(a) SSHO – Site Safety and Health Officer. On-site full time? (Often the Superintendent is allowed to perform both roles.)

ANSWER: No. The contractor should analyze the project requirements and determine when/how to appropriately staff these positions.

5(b) CQC or CQCM – Contractors Quality Control Manager. On-site full time?

ANSWER: No. The contractor should analyze the project requirements and determine when/how to appropriately staff these positions.

5(c) Senior Environmental Scientist/Engineer – Is this a full-time on-site position?

Physical Scientist (Chemist) – Is this a full-time on-site position?

ANSWER: No. The contractor should analyze the project requirements and determine when/how to appropriately staff these positions.

6) The PWS suggests that soil samples from the stockpiles were analyzed for physical properties, but I do not see any geotechnical soil data in the GFI provided. If physical separation of contaminated and uncontaminated soil is to be performed, some understanding of the geotechnical characteristics for the stockpiled soil will be needed by potential bidders. If physical separation of soil by grain size or other physical soil property is not permissible under this scope of work, we request that be made clear in the PWS or other correspondence with potential bidders.

ANSWER: Geotechnical Soil Data is included in the attached supplemental data. There is no data for stockpile EIE379-3. For stockpile EIE365-1 particle size distribution and total organic carbon is available but bulk density samples were not collected due to relocation of the stockpile prior to bulk density sampling.

7) For a certified 8(a) company in its developmental stage, would its predecessor company’s project experience be considered relevant and acceptable?

ANSWER: If the offeror is a joint venture, then work done by each individual partner and the joint venture itself will be considered.

Experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company will not be considered if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company. An offeror may receive credit for relevant past performance under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example) if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the submitted project is relevant to their role on this project.

An offeror will not receive credit for past performance of a parent, sister or other affiliated company if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company. An offeror may receive credit for relevant past performance under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example); if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the project submitted is relevant to their role on this project.

Offerors who submit experience information of a parent, sister or other affiliated company must describe what involvement such company will have on the instant acquisition. The offeror shall provide a one page narrative that clearly and specifically indicates what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will be provided or relied upon for contract performance. The Government may discount the experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company unless the prime contractor clearly provides evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the parent, sister or other affiliated company or provides a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter including the following:

1. A statement of commitment as to the performance and utilization of the identified entity’s resources on the project.

2. Signatures of both the Offeror and Meaningful Relationship Entity.

8) We were wondering if the reports for the pre-construction ISM sampling were available for the stockpiles included under this solicitation. We would like to have those to confirm the number of samples per stockpile footprint.

ANSWER: GFI provided 21 June 21; USAF and regulators have determined that Post-Liner Stockpile samples are no longer required. See revised PWS that removes this requirement.

9) Please provide a map of current stockpile location(s) for Contractor planning haul distances.

RFP states the piles are located at landfill #3 although CLIN 0007, EIE365 is currently stockpiled at another location on the AFB.

ANSWER: GFI provided 30 June 21. EIE 365 is currently located at Contingency Area E.

Updated figure provided in GFI supplemental data.

10(a) Will there be a section L and M provided as a supplement to the solicitation?

ANSWER: Refer to section 00 22 11

10(b) If the offeror’s approach includes a prime/subcontractor teaming agreement, will the teaming agreement’s subcontractor’s past performance be considered relevant for this procurement under subpart 9.601?

ANSWER: Experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company will not be considered if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company. An offeror may receive credit for relevant past performance under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example) if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the submitted project is relevant to their role on this project.

An offeror will not receive credit for past performance of a parent, sister or other affiliated company if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company. An offeror may receive credit for relevant past performance under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example); if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the project submitted is relevant to their role on this project.

Offerors who submit experience information of a parent, sister or other affiliated company must describe what involvement such company will have on the instant acquisition. The offeror shall provide a one page narrative that clearly and specifically indicates what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will be provided or relied upon for contract performance. The Government may discount the experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company unless the prime contractor clearly provides evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the parent, sister or other affiliated company or provides a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter including the following:

1. A statement of commitment as to the performance and utilization of the identified entity’s resources on the project.

2. Signatures of both the Offeror and Meaningful Relationship Entity.

10(c) Section 5.9 of the performance work statement indicates the performance period for the base CLINS will be 16 months from date of award. Will each of the (5) optional CLINS have a 16 month period of performance as well? Assuming this is understood correctly, the contract has the potential to extend to (8) years. Is this correct?

ANSWER: The Contractor shall have 16 months to complete all base tasks CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 from date of award. If optional tasks are awarded the contract completion date will be 16 months from the date of that award. The ordering period for this requirement is from date of award through 30 September 2021 for all option tasks (CLIN 0003, CLIN 0004, CLIN 0005, CLIN 0006, CLIN 0007); therefore the final completion date for any option, if exercised on 30 September 2021, will be 30 January 2023.

11) On Page 46 of the solicitation, there is a requirement for contractors to collect post-liner stockpiles samples at the same locations as the pre-liner stockpile samples. The PWS indicates this information is available in GFI. We have reviewed the one GFI document provided and did not see information pertaining to the location of the pre-liner samples. Can the location of the pre-liner samples please be provided?

ANSWER: Please see response to Comment 8 12(a) Table 7, Page 57 and 58. It appears that some of the reference publications are partially cut off. Please provide a full name/ listing and web link.

ANSWER: Updated Table 7 provided with GFI.

12(b) Please provide the USAF (United States Air Force). 2018. Final Programmatic QAPP Work Plan for F-35A Beddown Program Soil Management for Construction Activities, Eielson AFB, Alaska. March. Provide AOC # or Proper subject or title for ease of searching the AFCEC database.

ANSWER: See GFI supplemental data.

12(c) Please provide a PDF of the Stockpile Characterization Report, Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS)and Comingled PFOA/PFOS and Petroleum F-35 Soil Stockpile Characterization Sampling (USAF, pending) as referenced in B.08 Technical Memorandum Section 4.2 Data Quality.

ANSWER: GFI provided 6 July. The complete characterization report will not be provided.

12(d) It seems that Stockpile EIE365 was moved to contingency area E. Please provide the date when it moved and what protocol was used to determine quantity. Was there prior density reports from the first location? The Technical Memorandum does not include the details on density.

ANSWER: Stockpile 365-1 was moved during the last week of May or first week of June. No previous density reports are available. Volume measurements were not obtained upon movement of stockpile.

12(e) As the EIE365 quantities do not have adequate density reports and represent 1/4 of total volume of contaminated soil to be disposed of, please consider a post award density test to finalize density measurements and decrease risk for the contractor.

ANSWER: For stockpile EIE365-1 particle size distribution and total organic carbon is available but bulk density samples were not collected due to relocation of the stockpile prior to bulk density sampling. If this optional task is awarded the Government would be amenable to verification of bulk density assumptions and possible modification, if required.

12(f) Does the USACE require berm material to be tested prior to re-grading?

ANSWER: No. See response to comment 8. Post-liner sampling is no longer required.

12(g) Page 4 of B.08 Technical Memorandum appears to have some rounding errors in the quantity calculations. When we total the columns, a small difference arises. Please advise.

ANSWER: It appears CY was rounded to the nearest whole unit. An updated version is provided without rounding.

12(h) Page 4 of B.08 Technical Memorandum appears to have no variation in DU Volume (CY) in any of the units in EIE388-4 (217 for each of DU Name 01,04,05,05,07,08) and EIE389-1 (411for each of DU Name 1,2,3,4,5). Please verify results to ensure density average measurement is accurate.

ANSWER: Soil Stockpiles EIE 388-4 and EIE 389-1 were sampled by the construction contractor and survey data for the stockpile and DU boundaries were not provided. DU volumes were estimated based on the total volume of the stockpile divided by the number of DUs.

12(i) Did the soil density calculation average from page 4 B.08 Technical Memorandum include the Total Volume (CY) that will remain on EIE? If the volume to remain on-site is included, please exclude to reduce risk for the contractor.

ANSWER: The soil density average presented in section 3.0 of the text is the average value among the 12 stockpiles for which density is available (i.e., does not include EIE 365-1), and is not a weighted average based on the volume in each stockpile. Potential bidders should refer to the data presented in the Table in Section 4.1 for soil density values for any given stockpile. Soil physical property data is provided as supplemental data.

12(j) Are the entities which provided stockpile characterization prohibited from participating in this solicitation?

ANSWER: Entities which provided stockpile characterization are not prohibited from participating in this solicitation.

12(k) Please confirm hydroseed will only be applied at uncontaminated soil placement pre-approved location. No hydroseed to be placed at EIE PFAS stockpile area where liners and long term stockpiles were removed.

ANSWER: Correct.

12(l) Should the proposed hydroseed areas be watered until germination and growth when 70% coverage is provided?

ANSWER: Yes. Please include.

12(m) What seed mix should be used?

ANSWER: Please see “01a – EAFB, Establishing Vegetation Guidance” (included in Supplemental Data) which recommends Kentucky Blue Grass and Creeping Red Fescue.

12(n) Does the USACE have any records of liner breach at any stockpile?

ANSWER: There are no records of breached liners.

12(p) If post-liner construction levels return as higher than pre-liner levels, will that work be a Change Order to this solicitation?

ANSWER: Post-Liner sampling is no longer a requirement of this PWS.

12(q) Is there an updated wage determination to include in the solicitation?

ANSWER: No. WD 2015-5683-11 is the most up to date for this solicitation as of 14 July 2021.

12(r) For purposes of the schedule, shall we use the NTP date of September 30, 2021 and include all options?

ANSWER: Yes 12(s) Factor 1. Please consider increasing the page count to 8.

ANSWER: No 12(t) Factor 2. Does the USACE require resumes? Please allow those pages to be excluded from page count.

ANSWER: No. Resumes are not required.

12(u) Factor 2. Please allow the Org. chart to be excluded from the page count.

ANSWER: No 12(v) Factor 3. Please consider increasing the page count to 8.

ANSWER: No 12(w) There seems to be a discrepancy in funding and ordering options. Please see page 45 and page 55. Page 45, Task 4.0 includes "The tasks included in this PWS are described in this section and listed in Table 4 below. Optional tasks may be awarded non-sequentially, individually, and/or as a group depending on funding availability." Page 55, 5.9 Schedule includes "The ordering period for this contract is through 30 September 2021. The contractor shall have sixteen (16) months to complete all base tasks from the date of award. Subsequent award of optional tasks will extend the contract completion date sixteen (16) months from the date of that award. If additional funding is secured, may an option be exercised after 30 September 2021?

ANSWER: Option Tasks will not be exercised after 30 September 2021.

13(a) Please provide a Site Plan showing locations of all six stockpiles included in base and options.

ANSWER: GFI provided 7 July 21.

13(b) Please provide dimensions of each stockpile. Square footage and height as a minimum.

ANSWER: See figures in provided GFI and Supplemental data.

13(c) Will a site visit be scheduled?

ANSWER: No.

13(d) Factor 1: Technical Approach. Will the Technical Approach address only the base bid or the base bid plus options?

ANSWER: Base plus options.

13(e) Will Leachate collection, storage, handling, and/or disposal be included in this proposal?

ANSWER: Leachate is currently being addressed by stockpile maintenance contract.

13(e)(1) Are leachate disposal facilities on Eielson available for this soil removal?

ANSWER: No 13(e)(2) If yes, where are they located?

ANSWER:

13(f) Restoration and placement of clean material. Will the USACE provide a quantity for a basis of the bid to be adjusted as a result of post stockpile removal testing? Or will the USACE provide a depth of removal for excavation under the stockpiles for basis of bids?

ANSWER: Post-Liner sampling is no longer a requirement of this PWS. Any residual contamination under the stockpiles will be addressed by the government later.

13(g) Will the USACE make available the pre stockpile sampling records of the existing ground?

ANSWER: Post-Liner sampling is no longer a requirement of this PWS.

13(h) Table 3: Performance Requirements Summary Task 1; What is the maximum time frame from submittal of Pre-Draft Work Plan and resolution of USACE & USAF Comments?

ANSWER: Typically, the Government has 30-days to review contractor submittals. Table 6 of the PWS identifies RTC’s should be provided 30 days after comment receipt. Table 6 also stipulates the due date for draft documents as 15 days after USACE & AF accept RTCs. The maximum time frame ultimately depends on the contractor’s ability to adequately and substantially address the comments provided.

13(i) Table 3: Performance Requirements Summary Task 1; What is the maximum time frame from submittal of Draft Work Plan and resolution of the regulatory comments?

ANSWER: Typically, the regulators have 30-days to review contractor submittals. The Draft Final shall be provided within 15 days of resolving regulatory comments. The maximum time frame ultimately depends on the contractor’s ability to adequately and substantially address the comments provided.

13(j) Table 3: Performance Requirements Summary Task 1; What is the maximum time frame from submittal of Final Work Plan and Final Meeting?

ANSWER: These performance measures are not sequential.

13(k) Will a separate Work Plan be required for each Option Awarded?

ANSWER: No. A combined work plan for all awarded options is preferred.

13(l) Table 3: Performance Requirements Summary Task 2-6; What is the maximum time frame from submittal of Pre-Draft Closure Report and resolution of USACE & USAF Comments?

ANSWER: The maximum time frame depends on the contractor’s ability to adequately and substantially address the comments provided.

13(m) Table 3: Performance Requirements Summary Task 2-6; What is the maximum time frame from submittal of Draft Closure Report and resolving regulatory comments?

ANSWER: The maximum time frame depends on the contractor’s ability to adequately and substantially address the comments provided.

13(n) Will a separate Closure Report be required for each Option awarded?

ANSWER: No. A combined closure report for all awarded options is preferred.

13(p) 4.0 Tasks; Will the optional tasks be awarded at the time of the award of the Base Contract or will they be awarded sometime during the Contract Time?

ANSWER: Optional tasks may be awarded at any time from date of award through 30 September 2021.

13(q) Please provide a copy of Comprehensive Characterization Report (AFCEC 2012) ANSWER: GFI provided 7 July 21.

13(r) Are Sections L & M available for this RFP?

ANSWER: Refer to section 00 22 11 13(s) Will the same rail loading area be available for this project? If so, then please provide a location map and description.

ANSWER: GFI provided 7 July 21.

14(a) Performance Work Statement, Section 2.0, Last paragraph; This section references “….the 2018 F-35 Programmatic QAPP (USAF 2019) and/or 2020 Project-Specific Work Plan and UFP QAPP for the F-35 Soil Stockpile characterization Sampling (AFCEC 2020)”.

Can the Government please make these files available to bidders?

ANSWER: Available in GFI supplemental data.

14(b) Performance Work Statement, Section 2.0, second to last sentence states “The contractor shall segregate contaminated soil and uncontaminated soil from each stockpile based on the results of the characterization report and propose an appropriate strategy to address each category of soil” The statement “propose an appropriate strategy to address each category of soil” appears inconsistent with a transport and disposal tasking. We understand the soils are to be screened with soil meeting the 18 AAC 75.341 Table B1 (MTGW) for PFOS, PFOA, and PAHs standard to be set aside for designated on-site use. Other soils are to be disposed off site. Can the government provide their expectations for other categories beyond these two referenced in this sentence?

ANSWER: The contractor is correct. Please disregard “and propose an appropriate strategy to address each category of soil.”

14(c) Performance Work Statement, Section 4.1, second paragraph states “The post liner samples should be collected from the same areas using the same methodology (ISM) as the pre-liner samples and the pre/post-liner results should be compared to evaluate any impacts”.

Would the Government provide the pre-liner sampling methodology and results so that the Contractor can suitably apply the same methodology to pricing the post liner sampling that will be required?

ANSWER: Post-Liner sampling is no longer a requirement of this PWS.

14(d) Performance Work Statement, Section 4.1, fifth paragraph states “…maintain the natural contour of the land (ensuring water will not pool or cause erosion) and apply hydroseed”.

Is there a specified seed mix and warranty requirements for establishing growth?

ANSWER: See previous questions regarding hydroseed requirements.

14(e) Performance Work Statement, Section 4.1, sixth paragraph states “Electrical power will be available for Contractors use on a for purchase basis. For proposal purposes, the current utility rate is approximately $0.23 per KW”.

Based on the requested tasking, off site transport and disposal, we don’t understand why the contractor would be required, on such a short duration, to be responsible for paying for electric usage. Can the government provide further detail on why they are expecting the small business contractor to pay for electrical usage on this project?

ANSWER: If the contractor would like to set up a job trailer or other equipment, the contractor would be required to pay for any electricity used. If the contractor has need for electric power this is the current rate.

14(f) Performance work statement, Section 4.2.2, third paragraph states “If applicable, the contractor shall assist with the review, interpretation, and application of new statutory and regulatory requirements”.

This statement is vague and deals with unknown future regulatory changes particularly associated with per- and polyfluoroakyl substances (PFAS). Further, we don’t understand why this would be required for a transport and disposal tasking as currently required in this PWS. If the government anticipates regulatory changes to the current 18AAC75.341 Table B1 (MTGW) for PFAS, the solicitation should be revised to require off site disposal for all soils without segregation. Request clarification.

ANSWER: State and federal regulatory changes are always possible during the implementation of this contract. If the regulatory changes impact costs those changes will be negotiated with the contractor.

14(g) Performance Work Statement, Section 4.2.4 and Section 5.6, and Table 7 reference to UFP-QAPP requirements.

Throughout these sections and Table, the PWS references protocols and procedures related to the collection and chemical analysis of PFAS. However, no references to chemical analytical methods are provided for post-liner sampling. Further, a review of the ADEC Action Plan and technical memorandums (2018 and 2019) and the 2018 and 2020 ITRC site characterization, sampling, and laboratory analytical methods for PFAS reference a multitude of potential laboratory methods. Those methods and specific analyte reports include, but are not limited to:

LC/MS- Method 537.1 (18 analytes), Method 533 (up to 29 PFAS analytes), ASTM D7968-17a (for soils with laboratory specific precursor lists). In addition, methods such as Total Oxidizable Precursors (TOP) Assay (again, with laboratory specific precursor list), Particle Induced Gamma

Emission (PIGE), and Quadrupole Time of Flight-Mass Spectroscopy (QTOF-MS) are available.

As the Contractor is required to segregate soils above the regulatory standard and these laboratory methods have a wide range in pricing and precursors reported, we request that the Government provide which laboratory method and precursor list will be required for confirmation soil samples.

ANSWER: Post-Liner sampling is no longer a requirement of this PWS.

14(h) Performance Work Statement, Section 8.0 provides a PO Box address for proposal submissions but does not provide any further instructions for the format and delivery of proposals.

Will the government accept proposals submitted via email? If so, will you please provide the email address(es) the proposals should be submitted to?

ANSWER: Refer to Section 00 22 11 Proposal Submission Requirements.

Proposals shall be submitted via email to michelle.shoshone@usace.army.mil and timothy.l.clapp@usace.army.mil

14(i) Proposal Evaluation Criteria, Factor 4: Milestone Schedule and Time Schedule.

Shall the Performance Based Milestone Chart and Time Schedule be provided in Gantt-chart format?

ANSWER: A Gantt-Chart would be an acceptable format.

14(j) Proposal Evaluation Criteria, Factor 5: Price Proposal.

Will the Government please confirm that only the “Proposal CLIN Schedule” (also referred to in the PWS as “Proposal Schedule”) is required for this Factor and no other documentation or backup is required?

ANSWER: Refer to Section 00 22 11 Proposal Submission Requirements.

14(k) Section 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (ONE STEP, DB) cites that the offeror shall complete the Proposal Adequacy Checklist. The Proposal Submission Requirements do not include submitting the Proposal Adequacy Checklist.

Please confirm the Proposal Adequacy Checklist is not required to be submitted by the offeror.

ANSWER: The Proposal Adequacy Checklist is required to be submitted by the offeror.

14(l) Section 00 72 00 - CONTRACT CLAUSES Is the Offeror required to submit completed Representations and Certifications from this section?

ANSWER: The Offeror is required to submit completed Representations and Certifications from this section.

14(m) Section 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (ONE STEP, DB) Will the Government please specify what, if any, non-evaluative supporting documents are required for this proposal?

ANSWER: Please refer to Section 00 22 11 – Proposal Submission Requirements LPTA Reqs and Eval Criteria.

15) Would the Government please confirm that the only acceptable methodology is to containerize, transport, and dispose of contaminated soil at a RCRA class C or D solid waste landfill?

ANSWER: Yes, that is correct.

16(a) Can on-site separation technologies be used to segregate contaminates from soil so that remaining soil is below ADEC 18AAC.341 Method 2, under 40-inch, MTG cleanup levels? Soil treatment/segregation would be conducted to reduce the amount of material requiring disposal at a RCRA subtitle C or D facility.

16(b) Will there be any on-site restrictions on daily working hours at Eielson AFB during the performance of this contract?

ANSWER: No. There are no restriction to the work hours in the industrial part of the base. The only time the contractor will be restricted is if EOD is getting a shipment of explosives, then the job may need to shut down for a day or so for that shipment delivery.

16(c) The GFI indicates that the only contaminants of concern are PFOA, PFOS, and PAHs.

Therefore, is it safe to assume that the analysis required on the stockpile soils or the underlying footprint soil will be limited to PFAS and PAHs?

ANSWER: Post-Liner sampling is no longer a requirement of this PWS.

16(d) Please confirm the ERPIMS submittal is required for stockpile samples as well as footprint samples.

ANSWER: Post-Liner sampling is no longer a requirement of this PWS. ERPIMS data entry is also no longer required.

16(e) Please confirm that Stage 4 data review is required rather that a more moderately priced Level 4 data package and Stage 2A data review.

ANSWER: Post-Liner sampling is no longer a requirement of this PWS.

16(f) Please verify the 8(a) Set Aside size standard requirement for NAICS 562910 of $22M for Remediation Services as opposed to 750 employees for Environmental Remediation Services.

ANSWER: The SBA Procurement Center Representative has approved the 8(a) Set Aside size standard requirements for this action.

17(a) What is the anticipated time frame for award of the base contract?

ANSWER: Contracting response: This requirement is anticipated to be awarded no later than 30 September 2021 17(b) Is it anticipated that any individual stockpiles will need to be separated into contaminated and uncontaminated soil?

ANSWER: No 18(a) RFP pg# NA Will there be a site visit? If so, please update the solicitation/contractors with the location, date, time and protocol for attending the site visit.

ANSWER: Not currently planned.

18(b) RFP pg# NA What is the deadline to submit questions regarding the solicitation?

ANSWER: Contracting response: The initial deadline to submit questions regarding this solicitation closed on 7 July 2021 at 2:00 PM AKST. The secondary deadline to submit questions regarding this solicitation is 21 July 2021 at 2:00 PM AKST; amendment with answers to secondary question period will be posted on 28 July 2021.

18(c) PDF pg#15 Under Proposal Evaluation Criteria, Factor 2, Staffing Plan, Are we required to submit a resume for each of the three key personnel listed in the proposal?

ANSWER: Resumes not required. A brief summary of qualifications should suffice.

18(d) PDF pg#15 If it is determined that Resumes are required for submission, would the Government consider excluding Resumes from the 3 page count limitation that is listed for the entire staffing plan under Proposal Evaluation Criteria, Factor 2?

18(e) PDF pg#16 Will sister subsidiary projects be considered acceptable for Factor 3 Relevant experience projects?

ANSWER: Offerors who submit experience information of a parent, sister or other affiliated company must describe what involvement such company will have on the instant acquisition.

The offeror shall provide a one page narrative that clearly and specifically indicates what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will be provided or relied upon for contract performance. The Government may discount the experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company unless the prime contractor clearly provides evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the parent, sister or other affiliated company or provides a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter including the following:

1. A statement of commitment as to the performance and utilization of the identified entity’s resources on the project.

2. Signatures of both the Offeror and Meaningful Relationship Entity.

Experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company will not be considered if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company. An offeror may receive credit for relevant past performance under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example) if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the submitted project is relevant to their role on this project.

An offeror will not receive credit for past performance of a parent, sister or other affiliated company if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company. An offeror may receive credit for relevant past performance under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example); if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the project submitted is relevant to their role on this project.

18(f) PDF pg#16 In Factor 3, If it is determined that sister subsidiary experience is allowed, 1) where specifically in the proposal will it be acceptable for offeror’s to include meaningful involvement narrative;

and 2) confirm meaningful involvement narrative will not count in the 4 page limit set for recent and relevant experience. Suggest allowing up to 5 pages for meaningful involvement narrative.

ANSWER: The contractor shall limit their response to 4 pages.

18(g) PDF pg#16 Under Proposal Evaluation Criteria Technical Proposal, evaluation of Relevant Experience, Factor 3, Relevant Experience, Paragraph 3 to include at least “four projects” while later in Paragraph 5, it states they will evaluate 3 projects. Please clarify the minimum amount of relevant experience projects that offerors are required to submit.

ANSWER: This section is requiring the contractor to provide 4 example projects. The standard is met if 3 of them demonstrate “successful past experience with projects of similar magnitude and comparable logistical or regulatory complexity”.

18(h) PDF pg#16

Under Proposal Evaluation Criteria Technical Proposal, evaluation of Relevant Experience, Factor 3, Relevant Experience, Paragraph 1 it states that recent and relevant experience shall be no longer than (4) pages in length, please clarify – is this to mean up to 4 pages is allowed for each project or is this a limit of 4 pages for all combined experience projects?

ANSWER: 4 pages total.

18(i) RFP pg#NA Where on the installation does the government intend to place the uncontaminated soils?

ANSWER: The exact location is yet to be determined. Please assume the location is within 4-miles of the current stockpile location.

18(j) RFP pg#NA Does the base have weight restrictions on roads adjacent to the stock pile locations?

ANSWER: No trucks larger than 10 tons can be used to haul stockpile material on base. There is potential for rutting in the long term stockpile area which the contractor is required to promptly address.

19) Is a bid bond or letter of bondability required? Are payment and performance bonds required?

ANSWER: Bid bonds, letter of bondabilities, payment and performance bonds are not required.

This requirement is for a service contract.

20(a) PDF, pg. 16 Under Proposal Evaluation Criteria Technical Proposal, Evaluation of Relevant Experience, Factor 3, Relevant Experience, Paragraph 1, it states we are to provide projects that are similar in size. Please define what is meant in this context for “size” – does this mean we are to provide projects similar in dollar value of the contract or, rather, similar in volume of soil removed?

Please clarify.

ANSWER: See previous question #3.

20(b) PDF, pg 16 Under Proposal Evaluation Criteria Technical Proposal, Evaluation of Relevant Experience, Factor 3, Relevant Experience, Paragraph 1, it states “The Contractor shall demonstrate recent and relevant specialized experience and technical competence as follows:

“Five or more years of substantive experience in conducting compliance work pertaining to State of Alaska and Federal Regulatory requirements …”. Please clarify whether each project on its own must demonstrate five or more years of this requirement or whether the sum total of combined project experience can meet this requirement.

ANSWER: The sum total of combined project experience can meet this requirement.

21(a) AECOM/Brice has the contract for sampling and testing of referenced contract soils. Are they precluded from bidding the project?

ANSWER: AECOM/Brice is not precluded from proposing on the project.

21(b) Section 00 22 11. Why is this referenced as a Design-Build?

ANSWER: This is not a Design-Build it is a Service Acquisition.

21(c) Section 00 22 11. Since the is awarded based on lowest price why is the Proposal Adequacy Checklist necessary? This seems to be overly burdensome for a proposal that is to load, haul and dispose of PFAS soils.

ANSWER: In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.403-1(a)(1) the threshold for obtaining certified cost or pricing data is $750,000 for prime contracts awarded before July 1, 2018, and $2 million for prime contracts awarded on or after July 1, 2018. There is no guarantee that the Government will receive adequate price competition in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation FAR 15.403-1(c)(1), therefore the Proposal Adequacy Checklist is necessary for this requirement.

SECTION 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (ONE STEP, DB)

The following have been modified:

LPTA REQS & EVAL CRITERIA

Proposal Submission Requirements and Basis of Contract Award

Disposal of PFAS Contaminated Soil Stockpiles EIE379, EIE385, EIE389, EIE377, EIE388, and EIE365

Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska

This is a “Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)” solicitation. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and award a single firm-fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the LPTA proposal. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of those proposals that are deemed Acceptable. Proposals receiving an “Unacceptable” rating in any of the evaluation factors will be excluded from consideration for award.

The evaluation factors for this action are:

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Factor Description Relative Importance

Factor 1 Technical Approach Acceptable/Unacceptable

Factor 2 Staffing Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable

Factor 3 Relevant Experience Acceptable/Unacceptable

Factor 4 Milestone & Time Schedule Acceptable/Unacceptable

Adjective Ratings: The following adjective ratings will be used in the evaluation of Factor 1 (Technical Approach), Factor 2 (Staffing Plan), Factor 3 (Relevant Experience), and Factor 4 (Milestone & Time Schedule).

Acceptable (A): The proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable (U): The proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

PRICE PROPOSAL

Factor Description Relative Importance

Factor 5 Price (Cost) Proposal *Lowest Price *EVALUATION OF OPTIONS: The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base requirements. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the selection criteria below.

Technical Proposal

The Contractor should prepare their proposal based on information provided in the solicitation documents. The proposal will be evaluated by comparing it to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), the Contractor's presented approach, and methods described below.

Factor 1: Technical Approach. Submit a Technical Approach that describes the manpower, equipment, and methods to be used in the containerization, transportation, disposal, and site restoration of previously excavated soils at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB), AK. The Technical Approach description shall be no longer than four (4) pages in length, with Offerors specifically addressing the following criteria in their submitted plan:

Description of the overall approach to transport and dispose of PFAS contaminated soil from the site to an RCRA approved Subtitle C or D landfill (with leachate collection system) to include the allocation and management of resources, schedule, deliverable tracking, and compliance and client correspondence.

Description of the overall technical approach that will be used to address each task identified in the PWS including site restoration, placement of clean soil, post stockpile removal sampling, data evaluation, and comparison with existing data.

Identification of potential risks working at Eielson AFB that may impact project schedule, budget, quality, safety, overall success, and describe the process to be used for implementing measures to avoid these risks.

Discussion of the contents of the required submittals and their associated quality requirements.

Description of any limiting factors.

Discussion of all technical approach assumptions.

Note: Offerors shall reference the following document: AFCEC. 2021 Interim Technical Information Report #3. June

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Technical Approach to determine if the plan is consistent with the requirements of the PWS. The evaluation standard has been met when the contractor demonstrates a Technical Approach that is feasible and clearly details the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements and how the project will be executed (by completely addressing each task in the PWS).

A Technical Approach that does not fully address the requirements of this PWS; does not demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements of the PWS; simply repeats the requirements of the PWS without discussing the method of performance; or includes claims or language that is unsubstantiated or lacks relevance to this PWS shall be considered technically unacceptable. The inclusion of numerous assumptions that significantly “assume away” contractor risk with regard to major issues or problems that may be encountered on the project will be considered unacceptable.

Factor 2: Staffing Plan. Submit a Staffing Plan that describes how the Contract will be staffed to execute the requirements of the PWS. The Staffing Plan shall be no longer than three (3) pages in length, with Offerors specifically addressing the following:

Identification of Key Personnel with experience working at AK Air Force Installations that will be used to meet the requirements of this PWS. Key Personnel shall include:

- Project manager with a minimum of 6 years of experience that will be used to meet the requirements of this PWS.

- Senior Environmental Scientist/Engineer with a minimum of 5 years of experience working on waste disposal projects to meet the requirements of this PWS. Must meet or exceed ADEC requirements for qualified sampler.

- Physical Scientist (Chemist) with a minimum of 5 years of experience working on similar projects conducting data evaluation, laboratory coordination, and Quality Control and Quality Assurance data reviews that will be used to meet the requirements of this PWS.

Provide an Organizational Chart clearly identifying the roles, responsibilities, lines of communications for the key personnel, teaming partners, and subcontractors. Describe how the key personnel and teaming partners will be integrated to successfully complete the PWS objectives.

The Offeror’s ability and approach to obtain additional resources that may be required to meet the requirements of this PWS.

Key Personnel shall have experience researching and conducting compliance work pertaining to State of Alaska and Federal Regulatory requirements of waste characterization, waste profiling/manifesting, waste transport/disposal, soil sampling, and laboratory data evaluation.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Staffing Plan to determine if the plan is consistent with the requirements of the PWS. The evaluation standard has been met when the contractor demonstrates a Staffing Plan that describes the qualifications of key personnel and subcontractors, discusses how they will be utilized to complete each task in the PWS, and details how additional resources can be obtained to achieve PWS requirements.

A Staffing Plan that does not address the requirements of this PWS shall be considered technically unacceptable.

Factor 3: Relevant Experience Recent and relevant experience shall be no longer than (4) pages in length. The Contractor shall demonstrate recent and relevant specialized experience and technical competence as follows:

Five or more years of substantive experience in conducting compliance work pertaining to State of Alaska and Federal Regulatory requirements for waste characterization, contaminated soil disposal, hazardous waste disposal, transportation, waste profiling and manifesting, soil sampling, and laboratory data evaluation.

The contractor shall provide examples of at least four past projects of similar size, scope and complexity that best demonstrate the above qualifications for each of the items listed above.

Submit projects that are at least 50% complete or were completed within the past seven (7) years.

The example project summaries shall be limited to a single page each. The example project summaries shall identify:

• Title and location of the project

• Total cost of the project

• Brief description of the project and relevance to this contract

• Dates of project performance

• Firms involved in the project

• Key personnel (identified in Factor 2) who participated in the project The Government will utilize the example projects summary to evaluate the capability and past experience as a basis for comparing offerors. The evaluation standard has been met when the contractor demonstrates successful past experience with projects of similar magnitude and comparable logistical or regulatory complexity in at least three (3) projects.