Attachment 3.pdf

Section J Attachment 3 Sample Project Statement of Work

1. Background: Pleasant view Army Depot (PAD, fictional) is located in Monterey County, California. From 1941 to 1990 PAD served as a major distribution center for Army materiel which entered and left PAD predominately by train and truck. No chemical warfare materiel (CWM) nor munitions were handled, stored, or used at PAD. Facilities on PAD included barracks, warehouses, vehicle and radio maintenance shops, training grounds and assorted support buildings. The Army retains control and use of 200 acres in the northwest portion of PAD where environmental investigations and cleanup are continuing. This area has not been developed in part due to the soft sediments and shallow groundwater, which can vary from 5-ft to 10-ft below ground surface depending on season and drought/wet years. Fortunately for the installation, a 50-ft thick regional clay unit (aquiclude) is encountered at 15-ft below ground surface and there are no shallow wells or surface water bodies in the area.

2. Site History: By reviewing aerial photos and interviewing long-time Army personnel from PAD, the new Installation Restoration Program (IRP) manager has identified one area under Army control as a former burn pit and fire-suppression training area. There are no records indicating what was burned, but interviews indicated that any flammable liquid and solid wastes from PAD were occasionally burned in the pit during the 1940s through the 1970s, including the debris from the original vehicle maintenance shop which was torn down around 1965. Diesel fuel was often used on the debris to set it aflame. There is no surface manifestation of the extent of the burn pit due to vegetation (tall grass) coverage, but based on the aerial photos it is assumed that the pit was approximately 50-ft by 50-ft in size and was located somewhere within a 5 acre area near the center of the 200-acre Army parcel. The PAD fire department would also use the burn pits for practice putting out the fires once the wastes were burned. The fire department only used water to put out fires during this time.

3. Performance objective. The IRP manager has put out a Performance Work Statement (PWS) to delineate the nature and extent of contaminated soil and to excavate, characterize, and dispose of contaminated soil, ash and any remaining burned debris as hazardous waste as indicated by the Offeror’s sampling and waste characterization. The work is being accomplished under the CERCLA Program. The excavation shall be backfilled with soil from an approved source which has previously been used by PAD located 5 miles (one-way) from the pit; there is no charge for the backfill material. Backfilling shall be performed in 2-ft lifts with 90% compaction (demonstrated by 1 compaction test per 10-ft by 10-ft area), and when brought to grade shall be reseeded with fescue seed common to the area. In addition, the nature and extent of groundwater impacts must be defined and quarterly groundwater monitoring must be conducted for a period of one year. Groundwater remediation, if required, will be under a separate PWS. Assume there are no utility or infrastructure obstacles in the area. The IRP manager would like the field work completed, with the exception of the groundwater monitoring, within 90 days of Final Work Plan approval; however, the manager may allow additional time if cost savings would be significant (i.e. 5% of entire project cost).

4. Cost Proposal. The Offeror shall submit a detailed cost estimate and technical narrative describing the procedures to be used for delineating the nature and extent of soil and groundwater impacts, and for excavation, characterization and disposal of the contaminated soil such that the site can have unrestricted re-use. (Assume that vapor intrusion from any groundwater impacts is not an issue.) The proposal shall include labor rates, number of hours, mix of labor categories and material and subcontractor costs. The excavation site shall be restored to similar grade and grass with the surrounding area. The technical narrative shall be no more than five pages and may use flow charts/decision trees, outlines of steps to be taken, or other methods to briefly explain their approach to this problem. An actual narrative written in complete paragraphs may be used, but is not required.

In addition to the above information, use the following assumptions for preparing the cost estimate:

1) Volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations are all that is required to delineate the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination; however, this does not apply to waste characterization samples.

2) The extent of the soil contamination can be determined by visual examination of boring cores or by VOC samples of soil. Assume 30 borings are required to delineate nature and extent of the burn pit.

3) Waste must be characterized from 1 sample per 100 cy; all samples indicate the material is classified as hazardous waste.

4) A groundwater VOC plume will be defined emanating from the burn pit and extending 100-ft downgradient of the plume by collecting 30 grab groundwater samples.

5) 926 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated soil is ultimately excavated and is hauled 20 miles to a hazardous waste disposal facility which charges $20 per ton for disposal. The same facility accepts liquid hazardous waste for $50 per 55-gallon drum. Confirmation samples shall be collected from each sidewall and bottom of the excavation; assume all confirmation samples are non-detect for VOCs.

6) Documentation of the quarterly groundwater sampling events can be provided with a two-page letter (Final only) summarizing the sampling event plus one table summarizing the EPA Level 3 validated laboratory results and one figure showing the potentiometric surface at the time of each sampling event. The letter-report should be completed with 60 days of sampling.

All additional assumptions the Offeror makes in preparing their cost estimate must be clearly listed in the cost estimate (or as an attachment to the cost estimate).

The Cost Proposal shall include costs for developing a Work Plan and Completion Report. Prior to starting work, the Offeror shall submit a Draft Work Plan, including a Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan that details the procedures to be used for the investigation and remediation efforts. The Army shall review the Draft Work Plan within 30-days and comments will be submitted. A Final Work Plan shall be submitted once all Army comments on the Draft version have been addressed and approved. Upon completion of the work, a Draft and Final Closure Report shall be submitted documenting the site remediation and restoration, including copies of all waste manifests, soil and waste sample results, and survey data delineating the excavated area. The Army shall review and comment on the Draft Closure Report within 30 days of receipt and the Final Closure Report shall include resolution of all Army comments on the Draft Report.