Consolidated Q and A - Final - Revised - Amendment 0006.pdf

Consolidated Q&A Final – W911S626RA001 (Amendment 0005)

Q# Amendm ent #

Question Government Answer

1 0003 In PWS Section 3.2 (Facilities), it states the Government will provide facilities as identified in Technical Exhibit 1. On that Facility Diagram, please note that the incumbent contractor purchased and currently owns the two buildings labeled "office" and the building labeled "single wide." Please advise if the Government will be purchasing them or will the solicitation be updated?

Government Answer: The Government will not be purchasing the incumbent-owned facilities.

The solicitation has been updated via Amendment 0001. Please see the revised PWS Sections 3.2 and 3.3, as well as the updated Technical Exhibit 1, for the revised facility and utility requirements.

2 0003 Is this a new requirement or a follow-on (recompete) to an existing contract? If there is an incumbent, please provide the current/previous contract number.

Government Answer: This is a follow-on requirement. The previous contract number for these services is W911S621C0003.

However, offerors are strongly cautioned that the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and solicitation instructions have been significantly updated for this acquisition (including Contractor- Furnished Facilities, CMMC/cybersecurity requirements, and the pricing structure). Offerors must base their proposals strictly on the current solicitation and its attachments, rather than historical data.

3 0003 In Evaluation criteria, the key personnel are identified as three positions; Project/Site Manager, RCRA Specialist, CAA Specialist. In the referenced PWS section, there is an additional position, Alternate Project / Site Manager (Contract Manager).

Can the government clarify if the Alternate Project / Site Manager (Contract Manager) is a key position along with the Project/Site Manager, RCRA Specialist, CAA Specialist?

Government Answer: Yes, the Alternate Project/Site Manager is considered a Key Personnel position. The omission of this position in the evaluation criteria was an administrative error.

Through Amendment 0003, the Government has updated the evaluation criteria in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 to include this position. Additionally, PWS Sections 1.6.10 and 1.6.10.1 have been updated to explicitly clarify the qualification requirements for the Alternate Project/Site Manager.

4 0003 PWS section 5.19 is not provided in the PWS. It is required to be addressed by the Section 2: Groundwater Monitoring Program Approach requires offerors to describe detailed technical methodology for executing a complete groundwater monitoring event (PWS 5.19). Can the government provide this PWS section?

Government Answer: Yes. PWS Section 5.10 (DTTF Inspection) was inadvertently omitted from the body of the original PWS document, which caused a numbering discrepancy for the subsequent sections. Through Amendment 0003, the Government has issued a revised PWS and Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) matrix that re-inserts Section 5.10 and corrects ent # the numbering for Sections 5.18 through 5.22. This correction shifts the Groundwater Monitoring Program to PWS 5.19. Offerors shall use the revised PWS and PRS provided in Amendment 0003, and the solicitation instructions referencing PWS 5.19 remain correct.

5 0003 Can the Government clarify the CLIN structure for Groundwater Monitoring? Are routine semi-annual groundwater inspections supposed to be priced under the Base Sustainment CLIN, leaving only the "complete Groundwater Monitoring Event" (PWS 5.19) to be priced under the separate optional

CLIN?

Government Answer: Yes, the semi-annual groundwater monitoring as referenced in the PWS Section 5.3.1.1 should be priced in the base effort. Yes, the effort defined in PWS Section 5.19 should be priced as an option.

6 0003 Are drums and containers reimbursable to the contractor, or must the contractor provide all containers and build those costs into their Firm-Fixed- Price proposal?

Government Answer: The Contractor must build those costs into their Firm-Fixed-Price proposal.

7 0003 Is the contractor required to provide their own heavy equipment for this contract, specifically including Heavy Mobile Equipment (HMED) and a pump truck for oil?

Government Answer: Yes.

8 0003 How are drums and personnel tracked (e.g., E-CAS, spreadsheets, QR codes)? Is the contractor required to provide their own software/IT system for tracking waste and personnel, or will the Government provide access to an existing system?

Government Answer: The government is in the process of transitioning to the government HMID system. The contractor is responsible for their personnel. To track waste through the facility (operating record) and personnel time/attendance the contractor will provide their own computer systems and software as appropriate.

9 0003 Who is explicitly responsible for generating the labels on the drums—the Government generator or the Contractor?

Government Answer: The Contractor is responsible for labels and material on contract.

10 0003 Can the Government clarify the standard process for handling oil and anti-freeze? For example, is anti-freeze pumped into drums? Is oil hauled exclusively in trucks, or in drums as well?

Government Answer: The contractor makes this determination, as they are the responsible party; whatever is required to comply with appropriate EPA and State waste regulations.

11 0003 Can the Government provide a brief summary of the contractor's responsibilities regarding DLADS coordination

Government Answer: The contractor is responsible for generating waste ownership documents and coordination with

DLADS.

(pick-up, transport, and offsite processes)?

12 0003 Are there any specific operational distinctions or separate tracking/billing requirements the contractor needs to be aware of when servicing Air Force facilities versus Army facilities on the installation?

Government Answer: No separate tracking/billing.

13 0003 Can the formal and informal generator training (PWS 5.12) be conducted via a hybrid or remote/virtual format, or must it be conducted 100% in-person?

Government Answer: Either format is acceptable.

14 0003 With the new Title V permit coming up in July, does the Government expect any significant changes from the 2019 permit that would impact the contractor's proposal?

Government Answer: While the Government does not anticipate sweeping changes to the Title V permit, there is one known addition expected: new leak checking requirements for all refrigeration units containing HFCs (15 pounds or greater with a Global Warming Potential of 53 or above).

Currently, 13 units have been identified that meet this requirement. A complete inventory is still being gathered, and the Government anticipates this number will increase.

Additionally, regarding the upcoming RCRA Part-B permit renewal, offerors are advised that it is impossible to predict potential input or additional requirements from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC).

15 0003 Can the Government provide clarification concerning the processes for emergency destructs at the DTTF, witness burns, and how DPG notifies the state?

Government Answer: In Module V of the Part B permit.

16 0004 Overall PWS Changes: There have been several changes to the PWS from the 2021 Version. Does DPG have the additional requirements added it can provide separately?

Government Answer: The 2026 PWS increases the contractor's responsibility in several technical and administrative areas. You should base your proposal on the 2026 PWS only.

17 0004 Landfill Permit and Overall Compliance (PWS Section 1.2 Background) DPG has incorporated the English Village Landfill Permit 9615R3 into the PWS. The PWS states that the Contractor is ultimately responsible for compliance

Government Answer: The Environmental Support Contractor is responsible for assistance with overall environmental compliance for DPG including permitting assistance of the English Village Landfill. The Contractor is responsible for ensuring execution with all applicable Federal, State, and Army requirements, whether services are performed by the Contractor or a subcontractor. Does overall landfill compliance (including operations, permitting, and regulatory adherence at Dugway Proving Ground) fall under the PWS requirements, or is the Contractor responsible for independently ensuring full compliance with the landfill permit?

Specifically, please clarify the Contractor’s responsibilities regarding:

• 5.3.1.1 – Landfill Semi-annual Groundwater Sampling Procedures (Does this fall under Table 2 optional events?)

• Salvage and Recycling requirements?

of the assigned PWS, which reflects Utah law and Dugway’s specific landfill operating permit.

The physical operation of the landfill is tasked to the BaseOps contract.

• Groundwater Sampling (5.3.1.1): This is a mandatory task within the Environmental Support Contractor's scope to support the Government's compliance, not an optional "Table 2" event.

• Salvage and Recycling (1.6.24.1): This requirement dictates how the Environmental Support Contractor must physically sort and dispose of waste/materials they generate during the performance of their contract duties when utilizing the DPG landfill. It does not mean the Contractor is responsible for operating DPG's recycling program.

18 0004 Services (PWS Section 3.1) The PWS states that the contractor must purchase computers and peripherals.

Will DPG provide a list of approved computers and printers with the required specifications for DPG NEC?

Government Answer: Due to continually evolving conditions, the Environmental Support Contractor will have to coordinate with NEC to ascertain current government computer requirements. The government can provide an approved list of vendors/POCs on the ARMY CHESS hardware schedule. The Contracting Officer will work with schedule vendors to obtain government pricing.

19 0004 UST / TE-5 DPG UST LUST

Management:

19 (1) 0004 • Does DPG currently have an approved DERR plan for the Ditto Motor Pool LUST site?

Government Answer: Yes.

19 (2) 0004 • TE-5 currently states: “1 LUST Site Monitoring Event:

Collection and analysis of groundwater/soil samples at the Ditto Motor Pool LUST site, typically involving 3 to 8 monitoring wells (depending on the DERR-approved plan) to track contaminant trends.”

Government Answer:

Environmental Support Contractor must comply with 5.21,b and execute work requirements in compliance with approved UST/LUST plans.

19 (3) 0004 • Please confirm the current number of monitoring wells and the exact scope of work required under TE-5. (If no plan is approved yet, please advise whether it should be added under Table 2 as an option).

Government Answer: Currently, there are 5 monitoring wells at the Ditto Motor Pool (DMP), and the approved Corrective Action Plan (CAP) calls for the addition of a 6th well (the installation of which is already funded under a separate contract). Under this solicitation, the Contractor’s Firm-Fixed-Price for the Environmental Support Sustainment CLIN shall include the following baseline requirement:

Groundwater monitoring of exactly 6 wells, at a quarterly event frequency (4 sampling events per year). Each sampling event includes the collection of groundwater levels at each well.

Note: Any future requirements driven by the results of this CAP monitoring that exceed this stated baseline will be addressed via a separate contract modification.

20 0004 Container Management (PWS Section 5.5) The PWS addresses container management but does not explicitly cover all common container sizes and material types used at typical hazardous waste sites.

Government Answer: Yes, see TE-6 (attached)

21 0004 DPG Maps and Locations: Can Dugway provide maps with mileage references for 90-day site locations, SWMU/HWMU areas, and emission sources for Title V compliance?

Government Answer: Yes, see attached map (TE-7) and list of Title V sources (TE-8).

22 0004 Table 1 in the Instructions to Offerors (RFP page 58 of 70), specifies page limits for each Volume. Can the government please confirm that the Cover Sheet, Title Page, Tab Dividers, Table of Contents and Glossary are EXCLUDED from the page limits for each volume?

Government Answer: Confirmed.

The Cover Sheet, Title Page, Tab Dividers, Table of Contents, and Glossary are excluded from the page limits for each volume.

23 0004 Can the government please confirm that Letters of Commitment for proposed Key Personnel are excluded from the 30-page limitation established for Volume II Mission Capability?

Government Answer: Confirmed.

Signed Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel are excluded from the 30-page limitation for Volume II. 30-page limitation for Volume II shall be raised to 35-pages.

Resumes, however, remain included in the page count unless otherwise specified.

24 0004 The Instructions to Offerors states to include a management/QC plan, but the evaluation criteria for Sub-factor 6 do not reference a QC plan. Can the government please confirm that offerors are not required to submit a QC Plan to achieve an “Acceptable” rating for this sub-factor, as it is required prior to the end of the phase-in period per PWS 6.1?

Government Answer: Correct. A full, detailed Quality Control Plan (QCP) is a post-award deliverable as defined in PWS Section 6.1 and is not required for proposal submission. For the purposes of evaluation under Sub-factor 6, offerors are only required to describe their management approach to quality control within their narrative. A separate QCP document is not required and will not be evaluated at this stage.

25 0004 Consideration given that Volume I already reaches the 15-page limit with mandatory administrative forms (SF1449, SF30s, etc.), will the government respectfully consider increasing or removing the page limitation for Volume I?

Government Answer: The Government acknowledges the administrative volume of Volume I.

The page limit for Volume I is hereby increased to 25 pages.

26 0004 Part II, Volume I, Price Proposal Instructions, Item a.

states, “Price Proposal Spreadsheet: Complete the SF 1449 and Attachment 01... by entering the FFP where prompted.” Can the government please confirm that the requirement to “Complete the SF1449” is directing offerors to complete the CLIN Items on the Continuation pages (pages 2 to 7 of 70)?

Government Answer: Offerors must complete Page 1 of the SF 1449 and Page 1 of all SF 30 Amendments, in addition to completing the Price Proposal Spreadsheet (Attachment 01).

27 0004 Can the government confirm that there is no requirement to submit the completed spreadsheet as an Excel file? In other words, please confirm the tables can be submitted as part of the PDF file submitted for Volume I.

Government Answer: Confirmed.

There is no requirement to submit the spreadsheet as a separate Excel file. All pricing data, including the Price Proposal Spreadsheet, shall be submitted as part of the single, searchable PDF file for Volume I.

28 0005 The solicitation requires offerors to confirm that a current NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment score is posted in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). However, the solicitation does not specify a minimum acceptable score.

Given that DFARS 252.204- 7020 historically established a minimum threshold of 110 for basic assessments, and the new Deviation 2026-O0025 shifts the framework toward Government-led Medium and High assessments, please clarify: (a) Is there a minimum SPRS score required for an offeror to be eligible for award?

(b) If so, what is the minimum acceptable score? (c) If no minimum score is specified, please confirm that any current, non-expired score satisfies this requirement.

Government Answer: The solicitation requires compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program requirements outlined in 32 CFR part 170 and DFARS 252.204-7021. To be eligible for award, offerors must achieve a CMMC Status of either Final Level 2 (Self) or Conditional Level 2 (Self) prior to award (see 32 CFR 170.16(b)).

(a) & (b) Minimum Score Required:

Yes, there is an effective minimum score requirement to achieve a "Conditional Level 2 (Self)" status.

In accordance with 32 CFR 170.21(a)(2)(i), an offeror is only permitted to achieve a Conditional status if their assessment score divided by the total number of CMMC Level 2 security requirements is greater than or equal to 0.8. This equates to a minimum passing score of 88 out of 110.

Additionally, achieving a

Conditional status requires that:

• Any Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) must be successfully closed out within 180 days of the CMMC status date.

• No security requirements in the POA&M can have a point value greater than 1 (with the exception of SC.L2-3.13.11 CUI Encryption under specific circumstances).

• Certain critical security requirements (e.g., CA.L2-3.12.4 System Security Plan, AC.L2-

3.1.20 External Connections, AC.L2-3.1.22 Control Public Information, PE.L2-3.10.3 Escort Visitors, PE.L2-3.10.4 Physical Access Logs, PE.L2-3.10.5 Manage Physical Access) cannot be included in the POA&M at all per

32 CFR 170.21.

(c) Non-Expired Score Satisfaction:

No, merely having a current, non-expired score posted in SPRS is insufficient for award eligibility.

The score and corresponding POA&M (if applicable) must meet the specific criteria for CMMC "Final Level 2 (Self)" (a score of

110) or "Conditional Level 2 (Self)" (a minimum score of 88, plus the aforementioned POA&M restrictions) as established by 32

CFR 170.

29 0005 Through Amendment 0003, the Government issued a Cybersecurity Compliance Requirements attachment confirming that offerors must complete a CMMC Level 2 (Self) assessment and upload their summary score and SSP affirmation to SPRS prior to contract award. Please clarify:

(a) Must the CMMC Level 2 (Self) assessment and SPRS submission be completed prior to proposal submission, or only prior to contract award? (b) Will DFARS 252.204-7021 (Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Requirements) be formally incorporated into the solicitation via amendment, or does the Cybersecurity Compliance Requirements attachment serve as the sole governing document for

Government Answer:

(a) The CMMC Level 2 (Self) assessment and SPRS submission must be completed prior to contract award. The Contracting Officer will verify the apparently successful offeror's active CMMC status and affirmation in the SPRS "CMMC Assessment" module immediately prior to award.

(b) DFARS 252.204-7021, DFARS 252.204-7025, and DFARS 252.240-7997 were formally incorporated into the solicitation via Amendment 0004.

(c) DFARS 252.204-7021 and 252.204-7025 govern the CMMC requirements, while the safeguarding of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

CMMC requirements under this contract? (c) If DFARS 252.204-7021 is not incorporated, please confirm which specific DFARS clause governs the CMMC requirement so offerors can ensure full compliance.

remains governed by DFARS 252.204-7012.

30 0005 The solicitation requires the prime contractor to confirm its System Security Plan (SSP) is current and that evidence is available for a Government-led Medium or High NIST SP 800- 171 assessment. Please clarify:

(a) Will the Government provide a CUI categorization or data inventory identifying the specific types and volume of CUI the contractor will create, receive, or process?

(b) Are subcontractors who access or process CUI also required to have a current SPRS score and be prepared for a Government-led assessment? (c) If subcontractors are subject to these requirements, must their SPRS scores and SSP readiness be demonstrated at time of proposal submission?

Government Answer:

(a) The Government will not provide a comprehensive CUI data inventory prior to award. In accordance with DoDI 5200.48, the Government Customer/Requiring Activity is strictly responsible for identifying and explicitly marking CUI or providing contractual direction dictates exactly what constitutes CUI under this contract.

The Government will formally identify and provide the specific CUI list to the successful offeror post-award. This list will be integrated into the contract at award or finalized during the 30-day Phase-In period under PWS

6.5. All identified CUI will map

directly to categories found in the official DoD CUI Registry.

In the absence of explicit, post-award identification, marking, or contractual direction by the Government Customer, the contractor shall assume the information is NOT CUI. The successful offeror remains responsible for safeguarding any explicitly identified CUI on their information systems in accordance with the CMMC Level 2 (Self) requirements.

(b) Yes, CMMC requirements flow down to all subcontractors who will process, store, or transmit CUI, per 32 CFR 170.23 and DFARS 252.204-7021.

(c) Subcontractor SPRS scores and SSP readiness are not required at proposal submission. However, subcontractors must have a current CMMC status prior to subcontract award, and the prime contractor is responsible for ensuring subcontractor compliance.

31 0005 Sub-factor 8 requires the offeror to confirm that all evidence for a Government-led NIST SP 800-171 Medium or High Assessment is organized and available for review. Please clarify: (a) Will the Government conduct the Medium or High assessment prior to award, after award but before performance begins, or at some other point during contract performance?; (b) If the assessment is conducted post-award and the contractor does not achieve a passing score, what are the contractual consequences (e.g., cure notice, termination for cause, remediation period)? (c) Does the Government anticipate publishing a timeline or scheduling process for these assessments?

Government Answer:

(a) Government-led Medium or High NIST SP 800-171 assessments may be conducted at any time: prior to award, after award but before performance begins, or during contract performance, at the Government’s discretion.

(b) Failure to maintain a valid CMMC status or pass a Government-led assessment will result in contractual consequences.

While the specific remedy depends on the severity of the failure, actions include, but are not limited to, cure notices, remediation periods, or termination for cause.

(c) The Government does not guarantee a fixed schedule for assessments but will coordinate as appropriate.

32 0005 The SAM.gov synopsis references DFARS 252.204- 7021 (CMMC) as a requirement, and Amendment 0003 includes a Cybersecurity Compliance Requirements attachment that references DFARS 252.240-7997 and describes CMMC Level 2 (Self) requirements. However, neither DFARS 252.204-7021 nor 252.240-7997 appear to be formally incorporated into the solicitation as contract clauses (either by reference or full text in the SF 1449 or addenda).

Please confirm: (a) Which specific DFARS clause(s) governing cybersecurity and CMMC will be incorporated into the resulting contract? (b) In the event of a conflict between the Cybersecurity Compliance Requirements attachment and the formally incorporated contract clauses, which document governs?

Government Answer:

(a) The contract incorporates FAR

52.240-93, DFARS 252.204-7012,

DFARS 252.204-7021, DFARS

252.204-7025, and DFARS 252.240-7997.

(b) Per FAR 52.212-4(r) (Order of Precedence), formally incorporated contract clauses take precedence over other solicitation documents, attachments, and Q&A documents.

33 0005 Many contractors maintain a Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) to document security controls that are planned but not yet fully implemented. Please clarify:

(a) Is a proposal acceptable if the offeror’s SSP reflects one

Government Answer:

(a) Yes. An offeror with open POA&M items may achieve a "Conditional Level 2 (Self)" status in SPRS. An active "Conditional" status renders the offeror eligible for award.

or more open POA&M items at the time of proposal submission, provided the offeror demonstrates a credible remediation timeline? (b) Is there a maximum number or category of open POA&M items that would render a proposal unacceptable? (c) Will the Government require POA&M closure prior to award or prior to the start of performance?

(b) Yes, there are limits to both the number and category of open POA&M items. To maintain a valid Conditional status, the assessment score ratio must be at least 0.8 (a minimum score of 88 out of 110).

Additionally, in accordance with 32 CFR 170.21, "critical" security requirements (e.g., System Security Plan, External Connections, Physical Access Controls) cannot be placed on a POA&M, and no security requirement on the POA&M can have a point value greater than 1 (except encryption).

If an offeror violates these thresholds, their SPRS profile will generate "No Status" and they will be ineligible for award.

(c) No. The Government does not require POA&M closure prior to award or prior to the start of performance. However, POA&Ms must be successfully closed out within 180 days of the CMMC status date to achieve a "Final" status. If the POA&M is not closed out within 180 days, the Conditional status will expire.

34 0005 The solicitation states that the offeror must confirm a NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment score is posted in SPRS ‘for all CAGE codes associated with this proposal.’ Please clarify:

(a) Does ‘all CAGE codes associated with this proposal’ include only the prime contractor’s CAGE code(s), or does it also include CAGE codes of proposed subcontractors? (b) If a subcontractor does not have an SPRS score posted, does this render the proposal non-compliant, or is this a post-award compliance matter?

(a) Prime Contractor Responsibility: For the purposes of award eligibility, the Government will only verify the prime contractor’s CAGE codes and corresponding CMMC Unique Identifiers (UIDs) in SPRS prior to contract award.

(b) Subcontractor Compliance Timing: Subcontractor SPRS scores are not evaluated by the Government for the prime contractor's award eligibility, nor do they render the prime's proposal non-compliant if missing at the time of submission. However, in accordance with 32 CFR 170.23, the prime contractor is strictly responsible for flowing down all cybersecurity requirements and ensuring their subcontractors possess a compliant CMMC status prior to subcontract award.

35 0005 RCRA Subtitle I & TSCA Compliance / TE-5 DPG UST LUST Management (PWS Sections 5.20 and 5.22); TSCA Requirements / TSCA Actions /

Investigations (PWS Section 5.22): For the listed Contaminants of Concern (PCBs, Asbestos, Radon, Lead- Based Paint) that have known historical issues at DPG:

35(1) 0005 • How many samples are required, and what is the sampling frequency?

Government Answer: While the exact sampling frequency and quantities are project-dependent, for the purposes of developing the Firm-Fixed-Price proposal for the Environmental Support Sustainment CLIN, Offerors shall assume the following annual baseline:

• PCBs: 5 samples

• Asbestos: 5 samples

• Radon: 5 samples

• Lead-Based Paint: 5samples

35(2) 0005 • Are the following management plans required as part of TSCA compliance under this contract: Asbestos Management Plan / Lead- Based Paint Management Plan?

If required, please provide any existing DPG plans or clarify the Contractor’s responsibilities for developing, implementing, and maintaining these plans.

Government Answer: The Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Management Plans are owned and maintained by the Government.

The Contractor is not required to develop these from scratch;

however, the Contractor will be tasked to provide technical writing support to assist in finalizing, adjusting, or updating these plans under the base tasking of the PWS.

For pricing this technical writing and TSCA administrative support, Offerors should anticipate an estimated level of effort of 0.25 FTE per year. Additionally, Offerors shall refer to Table 3 of the revised Attachment 01 (Price Proposal Spreadsheet). Offerors shall input their Fully Burdened Hourly Labor Rate for the personnel performing this TSCA Management Plan support into Table 3. The "Table 3 Subtotal" is for Government price evaluation/comparison purposes.

Offerors MUST ensure these total costs are absorbed and included within their monthly Firm-Fixed- Price for the Environmental Support Sustainment CLINs (X001) in Table 1.

36 0005 The solicitation requires offerors to submit resumes and signed Letters of Commitment for all four (4) proposed Key Personnel— Project/Site Manager, Alternate Project/Site Manager, RCRA Specialist, and CAA Specialist (as confirmed by Amendment

0003, Q&A #3) — and to present a feasible staffing and Phase-In plan. In a recompete environment, offerors may pursue recruitment of incumbent personnel — including incumbent Key Personnel — as a primary staffing strategy to ensure continuity of operations, minimize transition risk, and retain institutional knowledge of the RCRA Part B Permit, Waste Analysis Plan, EESOH- MIS, and site-specific regulatory relationships.

· Please clarify:

36(1) 0005 • Will the Government consider a proposal acceptable where the offeror’s staffing approach includes a stated intent to recruit and hire incumbent personnel, including current Key Personnel, during or after the Phase-In period — provided the offeror also proposes fully qualified, committed Key Personnel with signed Letters of Commitment at time of proposal submission who will perform at contract start?

Government Answer: Yes. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed staff as submitted. An approach that includes recruiting incumbent personnel as a risk mitigation strategy is acceptable, provided the offeror proposes a fully qualified and committed team that meets all PWS requirements at the time of proposal submission.

36(2) 0005 • If incumbent personnel are successfully recruited post-award, will the Government permit substitution of the originally proposed Key Personnel with the recruited incumbent personnel through the standard Key Personnel substitution process, provided the incumbent personnel meet or exceed the minimum qualifications in PWS Section 1.6.10?

Government Answer: Yes. Post-award substitution of Key Personnel, including for a successfully recruited incumbent, is permissible but requires the formal review and written approval of the Contracting Officer in accordance with PWS Section 1.6.10.

36(3) 0005 • May the offeror reference this recruitment strategy in the Phase-In Plan (Sub-factor 7) and Staffing Plan (Sub-factor 6) as a risk mitigation and continuity-of-operations measure without the proposal being found unacceptable?

Government Answer: Yes. Offerors may reference this recruitment strategy as a risk mitigation measure in their proposal.

36(4) 0005 • If incumbent Key Personnel recruitment is not permitted as part of the evaluated technical approach, please confirm whether the Government will consider a proposal acceptable where the offeror proposes

Government Answer: Yes, stating an intent to recruit incumbent personnel into non-key or successor roles post-award is acceptable, provided it is clearly described and not relied upon to meet minimum Key Personnel fully qualified, committed Key Personnel who will perform the Key Personnel roles at contract start, while also stating an intent to recruit and onboard incumbent personnel into non-key or successor roles if mutually agreeable after award

— provided this approach is clearly described and not relied upon to meet minimum Key Personnel qualification requirements.

qualification requirements at the time of submission.

37 0005 Volume II requires offerors to address 8 mandatory sub-factors within a 30-page limit.

· Please clarify:

37(1) 0005 • Will each sub-factor be evaluated independently on its own merits, or will the Government consider information provided in other sub-factors when evaluating a given sub-factor?

Government Answer: Yes, each sub-factor will be evaluated independently on its own merits.

The Government will not search other sub-factors for information to satisfy the requirements of a given sub-factor.

37(2) 0005 • If sub-factors are evaluated independently, should offerors ensure that each sub-factor section contains all information necessary for an ‘Acceptable’ determination without cross-referencing other sections of the proposal?

Government Answer: Yes. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that each sub-factor section of their proposal contains all relevant and necessary information required to demonstrate compliance. While minimal cross-referencing is permissible for clarity, the core evidence for each evaluation criteria must reside within its designated section.

38 0005 Throughout the solicitation, the Government provides examples of processes, methodologies, and deliverables (e.g., ‘include, but not limited to’). Please confirm whether such examples are illustrative only and not mandatory elements unless explicitly identified as required, and that offerors will not be found unacceptable for proposing alternative compliant methods that meet the underlying regulatory and performance requirements.

Government Answer: Confirmed.

Language such as 'include but not limited to' indicates that the provided lists are illustrative examples, not an exhaustive list of mandatory requirements. Tasks such as these are typically fully burdened and include the above language to describe all elements of a task, job, function, etc.

39 0005 Amendment 0003 (Q&A #3) confirmed that the Alternate Project/Site Manager is a Key Personnel position and must meet the exact same minimum skills, qualifications, education, and experience requirements as the Primary Project/Site Manager — including ten (10) years managing a Part B-

Note: The requirement specifies a PM with an Alternate PM with the same minimum qualifications per the PWS. The CAA and RCRA Specialists do not require the same qualifications as the PM and Alternate.

permitted hazardous waste storage facility and significant and relevant experience working with chemical warfare agent-related wastes. These are highly specialized qualifications that, when applied to both the primary and alternate position simultaneously, significantly limit the number of qualified individuals available industry-wide.

The Alternate Project/Site Manager serves in a backup capacity when the primary PM is absent and would not routinely perform as the Primary Manager of day-to-day operations. Requiring identical qualifications for a backup role

— particularly the combination of ten years of Part B facility management, chemical warfare agent-related waste experience, and State of Utah regulator interface — may unnecessarily restrict competition by limiting viable offerors to those with access to two individuals possessing this extremely narrow and specialized experience set. This restriction may not be consistent with the Government’s obligation under FAR 6.101 to promote full and open competition and obtain the best value, or with FAR 11.002, which requires that solicitation requirements are not unduly restrictive.

Additionally, under the Firm- Fixed-Price/LPTA evaluation methodology, requiring a fourth dedicated Key Personnel position are the same qualification level as the Primary PM will increase proposed prices — as offerors must account for the cost of retaining a highly credentialed individual in a backup capacity

— without a commensurate increase in performance quality or mission assurance. Please clarify:

39(1) 0005 • Will the Government consider reducing the Alternate Project/Site Manager qualifications to a level that

Government Answer: No. The requirements for Key Personnel, including the Alternate Project/Site Manager, remain as stated in PWS ensures competent backup coverage without requiring identical experience to the primary PM — for example, requiring five (5) years of Part B facility management experience while designating chemical warfare agent-related waste experience as “desired” rather than “required” for the alternate position?

Section 1.6.10.1. The Government has determined that these qualifications are essential for mission assurance and continuity of operations in the event of the primary PM’s absence.

39(2) 0005 • Will the Government accept an Alternate PM who meets all Primary PM qualifications except chemical warfare agent-related waste experience, provided the offeror demonstrates that the primary PM will be present for all chemical agent-related operations and that the Alternate PM will complete chemical agent-specific training during the Phase-In period?

Government Answer: No. The Alternate PM must meet all qualifications stated in PWS Section 1.6.10.1 at the time of proposal submission.

39(3) 0005 • Will the Government allow one of the other designated Key Personnel — specifically the RCRA Specialist or CAA Specialist — to serve in a dual role as both their primary Key Personnel function and as the Alternate Project/Site Manager when the primary PM is absent? This approach ensures continuity of operations through personnel already on-site, already familiar with DPG operations and the Part B Permit, and already vetted and committed as Key Personnel — while eliminating the cost and competitive burden of retaining a fourth dedicated individual with identical PM qualifications in a backup capacity. If this approach is acceptable, please confirm whether the dual-role individual must meet the full PM qualification requirements or only a reduced set appropriate for interim backup coverage.

Government Answer: See Note above regarding minimum qualifications of PM/Alternate vs.

RCRA and CAA Specialists.

o No. The Alternate Project/Site Manager must be a distinct, dedicated backup to ensure continuity of operations without degrading the performance or availability of other Key Personnel functions (e.g., RCRA or CAA Specialist).

39(4) 0005 • If the Government retains the current identical-qualification requirement and does not accept any of the alternatives above, please explain how this requirement is consistent with

Government Answer: The Government has determined that these qualifications are the minimum necessary to meet the agency's needs and ensure the safe, compliant, and uninterrupted promoting full and open competition and is not unduly restrictive under FAR 6.101 and FAR 11.002.

management of an IL5 / Part B-permitted hazardous waste storage facility handling chemical warfare agent-related wastes. As such, the requirement is not unduly restrictive and supports the Government's critical requirement for mission assurance.

40 0005 PWS Section 5.12 states that ‘DLADS is available under a separate Government contract at no cost to the Contractor for transportation and disposal of waste,’ and Government Q&A #11 (Amendment 0003) confirms the contractor is ‘responsible for generating waste ownership documents and coordination with DLADS.’ Please confirm: (a) That the contractor bears no financial responsibility for off-site transportation and disposal fees for waste routed through DLADS, and that the contractor’s FFP responsibility under CLIN X001 for PWS

5.12 is limited to coordination, documentation (manifests, profile sheets, GENCOMM files, DTIDs), loading assistance, and witnessing of thermal disposal. (b) For any waste that cannot be routed through DLADS (e.g., waste requiring specialized treatment not available through DLADS facilities), is the contractor financially responsible for procuring alternative transportation and disposal services? If so, please provide historical data on the frequency and cost of non-DLADS disposal events to support FFP pricing.

Government Answer:

(a) Confirmed. The contractor’s Firm-Fixed-Price responsibility under CLIN X001 for waste routed through DLADS is limited to coordination, documentation, loading assistance, and witnessing of thermal disposal. The Government bears the direct cost of the DLADS service itself.

(b) The contractor is not expected to include estimated costs for non- DLADS alternative disposal services within their Firm-Fixed- Price proposal for the base and option sustainment CLINs. While the need for non-DLADS specialized treatment occurs rarely, the Government cannot accurately predict the frequency or volume of such events. Therefore, in the event that waste cannot be routed through DLADS and the contractor must procure alternative disposal services, the Government will address the requirement and provide funding via a separate, bilateral contract modification. Any modification would only fund the alternate disposal service, labor and transport costs are part of the sustainment CLIN.

41 0005 Government Q&A #2 (Amendment 0003) advises that offerors ‘must base their proposals strictly on the current solicitation and its attachments, rather than historical data.’ The Government is also cautioned that under a Firm-Fixed-Price arrangement, offerors bear all pricing risk. Without historical workload data — such as waste volumes by type, number of waste streams, frequency of sampling events, and

Government Answer: Government answer: The PWS and its appendices are the primary sources of workload data. The document provides estimates for several activities, including waste drum and container volumes, pick-ups and transports, sampling events, and inspections. Offerors should base their proposals on the data provided within the PWS and the referenced Technical Exhibits.

groundwater monitoring event scope — offerors must make conservative pricing assumptions that may result in higher proposed prices. Please confirm whether the Government will provide any supplemental workload data (e.g., annual waste generation volumes, sampling frequencies, disposal event counts) to enable more accurate and competitive FFP pricing, or whether offerors should rely solely on the PWS, Technical Exhibits, and the data contained therein.

42 0005 The Waste Analysis Plan allows use of generator knowledge under certain conditions. Please clarify whether the Government expects offerors to assume routine reliance on generator knowledge for recurring waste streams, or to price for presumptive analytical confirmation unless otherwise directed.

Government Answer: The PWS indicates that generator knowledge is the "most frequently used" method for characterizing hazardous waste. However, it also states that if generator knowledge is incomplete, the contractor must perform physical and chemical testing. Therefore, the Government expects a primary reliance on generator knowledge for recurring waste streams where such knowledge is sufficient and documented, but the contractor should be prepared to conduct analytical confirmation when generator knowledge is insufficient. Additionally, it is impossible to predict Installation waste generation on a consistent basis, so it is also the expectation of the Government that the contractor is capable of understanding the conceptual application of “generator knowledge” as appropriate instead of assuming reliance on repetitive waste generation.

43 0005 The RCRA Part B Permit and Waste Analysis Plan reference multiple Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that govern day-to-day operations at the CHWSF (including SOP

HWSF-01, HWSF-02, HWSF-

03, HWSF-13, HWSF-14,

HWSF-20, and WDC-ENV- 003).

· Please clarify:

43(1) 0005 • Will the Government make current SOPs available to all offerors for review prior to proposal submission to ensure

Government Answer: The PWS does not state that the SOPs will be provided to all offerors before the proposal submission. SOPs are offerors can develop accurate technical approaches aligned with existing operational frameworks?

generated from the information provided in the PWS.

43(2) 0005 • If SOPs are not available pre-award, will they be provided during the Phase-In period?

Government Answer: SOPs are developed by the selected contractor. There is no requirement for the exiting contractor to relinquish company developed SOPs.

43(3) 0005 • Does the Government expect offerors to propose development of entirely new SOPs during Phase-In, or adoption and revision of existing SOPs to ensure continuity of compliant operations?

Government Answer: SOPs are generated by the information in the PWS. Any SOP for this requirement would be developed by the awardee. Historical SOPs are the property of the incumbent contractor. SOP disposition is at the discretion of the incumbent.

44 0005 The solicitation expects offerors to describe their waste management lifecycle and processes. Please clarify whether diagrams, flowcharts, or graphics are required to independently demonstrate full compliance with the PWS and permits, or whether diagrams are considered supplemental visual aids intended to support the written narrative. Please confirm that diagrams will not be evaluated as standalone compliance artifacts independent of the accompanying narrative explanation.

Government Answer: Confirmed.

Diagrams, flowcharts, and graphics are considered supplemental visual aids to support the written narrative. They will not be evaluated as standalone compliance artifacts independent of the accompanying narrative explanation.

45 0005 If offerors elect to include diagrams or flowcharts, is there a minimum or expected level of detail (e.g., regulatory citations, waste codes, decision logic), or will the Government accept diagrams that provide a high-level process overview supported by detailed written explanations in the proposal text?

Government Answer: There is no prescribed minimum level of detail for such visuals. The Government will accept diagrams that provide a high-level process overview, provided they are supported by detailed written explanations in the proposal text that adequately demonstrate compliance with the

PWS.

46 0005 If a proposed subcontractor becomes unavailable after award but prior to commencement of performance, will the Government allow substitution of an equivalently qualified subcontractor without impacting contract acceptability or performance, provided the prime contractor remains fully responsible for compliance?

Government Answer: Yes. The substitution of a proposed Major Subcontractor after award requires the written consent of the Contracting Officer. Approval is contingent on the proposed substitute being deemed to have qualifications equal to or greater than the originally proposed subcontractor and ensuring no negative impact on contract performance.

47 0005 The PWS and evaluation criteria require offerors to describe feasible technical approaches that demonstrate strict compliance with the RCRA Part B Permit, the CHWSF Waste Analysis Plan, the Title V Operating Permit, and the DPG QAPP — including specific references to WAP tables, permit modules, analytical methods, and reporting formats. However, several of these foundational documents have not been provided with the solicitation or its amendments and are not publicly available. Under a competitive recompete, the incumbent contractor has had continuous access to these documents throughout the current period of performance, including the Part B Permit, Waste Analysis Plan, all SOPs, the QAPP, deliverable templates, and institutional knowledge of the format, content, and level of detail expected in contract deliverables. Non-incumbent offerors do not have access to these documents and therefore cannot develop technical approaches with the same level of specificity. FAR 9.505-4 requires the Contracting Officer to take appropriate steps to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate competitive advantages arising from unequal access to non-public information. To ensure a level playing field consistent with FAR 9.505-4 and the Government’s obligation to promote full and open competition under FAR 6.101, please clarify:

47(1) 0005 • Will the Government make the following documents available to all offerors prior to proposal submission: (1) RCRA Part B Permit (UT3750211259), including all current modules and attachments; (2) CHWSF Waste Analysis Plan, including all referenced tables (Tables 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11); (3) Title V Operating Permit and Approval

Government Answer: The Government does not provide proprietary or internal operational deliverables from prior contracts.

Solicitations of this scope are competed using the PWS requirements, associated technical exhibits, and publicly available regulatory permits, which are accessible to all offerors on equal footing.

Order (TVOP No.

4500003004); (4) DPG Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for groundwater monitoring; (5) Integrated Contingency Plan / CHWSF Contingency Plan; and (6) SPCC Plan?

Please refer to the following websites to obtain the Part B Permit and Title V Permit and all associated documents in their entirety:

• Part B Permit:

https://deq.utah.gov/dwmrc/du gway

• Title V Permit:

https://daqpermitting.utah.gov/ DocViewer?IntDocID=127970 &contentType=application/pdf

47(2) 0005 • Will the Government provide examples of prior deliverables

— such as a recent Monthly Status Report, Annual Air Emissions Inventory, RCRA Biennial Report, Field Activity Report, or GMA Evaluation Report — so that all offerors can understand the expected format, level of detail, and content standards for contract deliverables on equal footing?

Government Answer: No.

47(3) 0005 • If these documents will not be provided prior to proposal submission, what steps has the Government taken to neutralize the incumbent contractor’s informational advantage per FAR 9.505-4, and how does the Government expect non-incumbent offerors to describe feasible technical approaches that demonstrate compliance with documents they have not been able to review?

Government Answer: The PWS and Technical Exhibits provide sufficient scope, frequency, and regulatory citations for an offeror to propose a feasible technical approach. These referenced documents are generated by work accomplished under the PWS.

Competent environmental support companies will be able to generate these deliverables containing accurate data. The Government evaluates proposals based on the ability to meet the requirements as stated in the PWS, not on replicating incumbent methodologies or formats.

48 0005 This solicitation states it will be…