Hill_AFB_ORC_Existing_QandA_(PreRFP)_20191101.pdf

ID Contractor Question Government Response:

Regarding the 2018 Hill AFB Five-Year Review (FYR), what is the status of the Air Force/PBR contactors implementation/completion of each of the “Recommendations” summarized in Table ES-2 presented on Pages ES-10 through ES-15 of the 2018 FYR Report (I.e. which of these have been completed, initiated, or not initiated by the PBR contractor?). Of the “Recommendations” not expected to be fully complete at the time of the award of the ORC contract, which will require completion by the ORC contractor?

A status of the 2018 FYR findings will be provided as GFI.

Regarding the 2018 Hill AFB FYR, what is the status of the Air Force/PBR contactors implementation/completion of each of the “Other Findings” summarized in Table ES-4 presented on Pages ES-20 through ES-24 of the 2018 FYR Report (I.e. which of these have been completed, initiated, or not initiated by the PBR contractor?). Of the “Other Findings” not expected to be fully complete at the time of the award of the ORC contract, which will require completion by the ORC contractor?

A status of the 2018 FYR other findings will be provided as GFI.

Regarding the 2018 Hill AFB FYR, what is the status of the Air Force/PBR contactors implementation/completion of each of the “Basewide Observations and Suggested Improvements” provided in Section 3.2 (pages 9 and 10) of the 2018 FYR Report (I.e. which of these have been completed, initiated, or not initiated by the Air/Force PBR contractor?)

Of these “Basewide Observations and Suggested Improvements” that are not expected to be fully complete at the time of the award of the ORC contract, which will require completion by the ORC contractor?

A status of the 2018 FYR basewide observations will be provided as GFI.

What is the status of the Air Force/PBR contactors implementation of the additional “Recommendations” that the EPA provided in their Protectiveness Determination for the 2018 Hill AFB FYR? Is the ORC contractor required to implement the additional recommendations specified by the EPA in their Protectiveness Determination for the 2018 Hill AFB FYR?

A status of the 2018 FYR EPA recommendations will be provided as GFI.

Many of the original remedy components/systems/extraction wells/trenches are not currently active at several of the OUs. What are the ORC requirements for maintaining each of the non-active remedy components/systems/extraction wells-trenches (i.e. operate once per month, operate once per year, visual inspections only, redevelop every 3 years, do nothing), if any? Please summarize what the PBR contactor has been completing in terms of a basic level of maintenance/periodic operation of each of these “non-active” system components.

The maintenance schedules for all remedy components are included in the O&M Plans which are provided in the GFI.

Section 8.5 of the ORC PWS requires the ORC contactor to prepare databases of equipment/systems with information such as scheduled maintenance, system compatibility, vendor sources, warranty expiration dates, etc. What is the status of these databases in terms of them being completed by the PBR contactor? Please provide the existing versions of these databases.

See revised PWS. Pertinent information is reflected in the O&M Plans.

Please provide a summary of the current condition of each of the remedial systems and its expected life-span vs. the length of the 10-year ORC. For each of the remedial systems where the expected life-span has been reached or will be reached during the 10-year ORC, please specify what assumptions should be used for bidding capital repairs or replacement for these systems.

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

Which remedial system components will need to be replaced to operate the systems at the time of the ORC contract takeover?

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

Please provide a list of deferred maintenance associated with the remedial systems and buildings that are included in this ORC contact.

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

10 Please provide a list of spare parts for the remedial systems that will be transferred to the ORC contractor at no cost. No spare parts will be transferred from the PBR Contractor to the ORC Contractor.

11 Please summarize any litigation that is currently impacting the OUs/sites included in the ORCs? Is this litigation expected to continue into the start of the ORC contract?

There are currently no litigations impacting the OUs/sites.

What if any public relations support will be provided to the ORC contractor by the government at no charge? The Contractor is responsible for public relations tasks in accordance with the PWS. However, Hill AFB Public Affairs office will provide guidance.

For OU 11, the Draft PWS states that both the SVE and PTS need to be evaluated and rehabilitated by the ORC contractor. Based on the information provided at the Site Walk it was not clear if evaluation and rehabilitation of the SVE system will be required by the ORC contractor. Please clarify.

See revised PWS.

For OU 11, how many replacement vapor extraction wells will require installation/connection to the system due to groundwater inundation of the existing vapor extraction well screens?

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

Regarding the OU 12 BBHCS, based on the information provided at the Site Walk it was not clear if the performance objective stated in the PWS was still applicable. In summary, is the ORC performance objective for the OU 12 BBHCS to “re-evaluate if this system is still needed” or something different (e.g. modify the system to properly cut-off the contamination currently bypassing the system or to develop an alternative remedial approach) per the PWS and the

2018 FYR?

See revised PWS.

Does the Air Force goal of RC for Site SS030 assume industrial standards, UU/UE, or something else as the Air Force’s overall goal/level to be investigated to? And remediated to?

See PWS Enclosure 1.

What is the Air Force’s presumptive remedy based on the data collected to date at SS030? If the presumptive remedy includes excavation, it is recommended that subCLINs for “Achieve Removal and Disposal of approximately XX CY of PCB-Contaminated Soil” be included as the Air Force has already included similar subCLINs for sites such as OT106.

This will help the Air Force compare bids in terms of apples to apples and minimize the chance of a change order.

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

Can all intrusive fieldwork (drilling, excavation and backfill, etc.) be completed during normal business hours at Sites SS030 and OT106? If not, please specify the requirements for evening and weekend work at these sites.

If work is required outside normal business hours, coordination with appropriate staff will be required; refer to on-base road/parking lot closure procedures are provided in GFI.

What are the specifications for site restoration for excavation activities in terms of compaction requirements, pavement and concrete replacement, hydroseed and watering, etc?

The Contractor will need to restore the site to its original condition unless coordinated/specified by Base Civil Engineer group.

Is the Air Force goal of SC for Site ST061 industrial standards, UU/UE, or something else? The April 2017 Final OES Performance Plan for Site ST061 stated that the “perpetual goals” for this site are to maintain the LUCs and maintain compliance with the Decision Documents and that this approach would result in a UU/UE SC in 180-200 years.

See PWS Table 1 and Enclosure 1.

21 Is the Air Force goal of SC for Site ST071 industrial standards, UU/UE, or something else? See PWS Table 1 and Enclosure 1.

Please define the “reasonably anticipated contaminants” for Site ST061. TCE was inferred to be a possible COC at this UST site during the site walk, is TCE considered a “reasonably anticipated contaminant for this site”?

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

Please define the “reasonably anticipated contaminants” for Site ST071. The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

24 Please confirm that the sites to be included in the ORC under Site OT106 are limited to Sites 1, 2405, 2406, and 265. This is correct.

An ESD or ROD Amendment is included in the PWS/CLIN for OU 10 at award. There is no performance objective/subCLIN to implement the remedy changes for OU 10. Will these remedy changes be implemented under a modification? What is the presumed change in the remedy and why is it necessary?

Yes. The Government reserves the right to implement the revised remedy under a contract modification or separate contract. Refer to the latest RA-O report in the AR (AR #592515) for more information on the site.

Please provide a summary of instances where methane has been detected above the lower explosive limit at the ORC OUs/sites.

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

Please summarize the methane monitoring and reporting requirements for the ORC contactor at OU 10, and any other OUs/sites.

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

Are on-base borrow pits available and permitted to be used by the ORC contractor for clean fill material? At what cost to the ORC contractor?

The material from the on-base landfill is currently available for the Contractor at no cost, however, the Contractor is responsible for testing of the material to ensure it is suitable for the purpose. Material availability may change during the period of performance.

Are on-base sources of potable water available? At what cost to the ORC contractor?

Potable water sources are currently available to the Contractor at no cost. Potable water availability at not cost may change during the period of performance.

30 The PWS and the SubCLINs for OU 13 conflict. Please clarify what is required. See revised PWS and Sub-CLIN Structure.

What will the status of the perched water investigation at OU 3 be at the hand-off of the PBR contract to the ORC and what are the requirements for the ORC contactor related to this issue?

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

32 Which buildings are required to be maintained by the ORC contractor? Please provide the building numbers and/or addresses.

Buildings that house restoration systems/equipment are provided in O&M manuals in the GFI for each treatment system.

Please provide the current/PBR traffic control plan/requirements and road closure permits for periodic sampling/monitoring activities for both On-base and Off-base.

On-base road/parking lot closure procedures are provided in GFI. Off-base road closures should follow local, State, and Federal traffic control requirements and the Contractor's site-specific safety plan.

Based on a visual inspection of the top layer of asphalt at the OU 3 cap, it appears that the top layer of asphalt may need to be replaced at some point in the next 10 years due to excessive crack sealing/patching. Will the ORC contractor be responsible for anything beyond simple patching/crack sealing of this layer of the cap? If so, please define the ORC contractor responsibilities in terms of repaving this area.

The Contractor will be responsible for performing RA-O in accordance with the approved DDs and any post-ROD changes.

Please provide an estimate of past history of waste disposal classifications (hazardous vs. non-hazardous) and volumes for each OU where the ORC contractor will be required to dispose of waste generated from the remedial systems.

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

Will any new landfill cap(s) need to be installed under the ORC contract? If so, please provide the specifications.

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

37 What additional periodic reports are required other than the Annual RA-O Reports, Quarterly Routine Monitoring and Measurement Reports (RMMR), Annual Assessment Report for LUCs, Quarterly Discharge Reports, and monthly treatment reports for each remedial system?

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

38 What is the notice of violation (NOV) history under the PBR contract? Should the ORC contractor assume there will be no outstanding NOVs when the ORC contractor assumes responsibility for the effort outlined in the PWS? There are currently no outstanding NOVs.

How many FOIA requests have been received in the 2018 and to date in 2019? Please provide an example of the level of effort expected from the ORC contractor for an average FOIA request response.

See revised PWS.

40 Is the OU 15 Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan available for review as a draft? A draft letter work plan for OU 15 is provided in GFI.

We are aware that the Air Force has invested in HAPSITE instruments and developed their application for Hill AFB.

When a HAPSITE investigation is warranted at OU15, will AFCEC provide the HAPSITE instrument and technician to perform the investigation, or is the contractor responsible for procuring/operating the HAPSITE? The Contractor is responsible for procuring/operating the HAPSITE.

The June 2019 GFI included a DRAFT FINAL OU15 ROD dated July 2017. The August 2019 GFI includes a DRAFT OU15 ROD dated November 2017. Thus, it appears the ROD approval process took a “backward step.” SubCLIN 0034AB is “Achieve ROD”. Can the government provide further details regarding the ROD status, what the points of dispute/contention (if any) are, and any additional information that would aid contractors in assessing the LOE required to finalize the ROD? For example, is the 2017 DRAFT ROD still considered an active document in review? Or will an entirely new ROD need to be developed? Please provide responses to these questions even if the “DRAFT” and “DRAFT FINAL” designation issue was simply an administrative error.

The nature of the disagreement on the Draft Final OU 15 ROD has been provided in GFI. A full re-write of the ROD is not anticpated at this time.

The November 2017 version of the OU 15 ROD is the most recent iteration of the ROD.

Table 2 of the PWS indicates the Final PBR Endpoint for ZZ113 is “RIP”. SubCLINs 0034AB and 0034AC are Achieve ROD and Achieve RIP, respectively. Please clarify: A ROD is necessary to achieve RIP, so according to Table 2 of the PWS it would appear that both of these SubCLIN items will be achieved by the current PBR contractor.

See revised PWS.

Please clarify what will constitute RIP for OU 15. There are currently 128 VIMSs installed and according to the Draft ROD (provided as GFI), there will be an ongoing need to install VIMS at buildings where the RBALs are exceeded during IAP sampling. In this context, it is not clear how the government intends to define RIP.

See PWS Enclosure 1.

How many houses will the ORC contractor be required to visit and attempt to talk to residents each year during the door to door public outreach campaign for OU 15 that was discussed during the recent RAB meeting?

Door-to-door notifications are not a regulatory requirement and may not be done again. In 2019, door-to-door notifications at 900 residences were completed. In 2020, it is expected that 600 residences may require door-to-door notifications. The OU 15 public outreach program will be determined based on the Final OU 15 ROD and RD/RA Work Plan.

46 If the door-to-door canvasing is successful, a significant increase in the number of residences to be sampled and VIMSs to be installed could occur. What limits will the government place on the number of additional homes in the IAP that must be accommodated without a modification.

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

47 Has the government considered specifying a total number of buildings to be sampled/VIMSs to be installed under the IAP each year, and handling any above this total as a modification? This would facilitate an “apples to apples” comparison of proposals received.

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

What is required of the ORC contactor at homes/buildings with VIMS that graduate from the OU 15 IAP (i.e., system removal, home/building repairs/roofing, etc.)?

The redacted Lease Agreement has been included in the GFI. The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

Regarding contacting residents for IA sampling under the OU 15 IAP: It is understood that the contractor is responsible for contacting residents to schedule sampling/VIMS O&M; however, please clarify whether Hill AFB will provide the list of residences/businesses to be contacted each year (name and address) from the Hill AFB Contacts Database, or if it will be the contractors responsibility to search available records to identify new owners/residents and others who should be contacted for each annual sampling round.

See Section 8.1.1 item l) in the PWS. The Contractor is expected to manage the list of locations that require indoor air sampling each year.

The sub-CLIN table has line items within several of the OUs where the Projected Award Date column indicates “Optional – TBD”. Given the potential uncertainties in the scope for many of these line items (e.g., the series of line items associated with investigations, potential pilot tests and ESD or ROD amendment for WP007) it seems the government will receive a wide range of assumptions making proposal evaluation difficult. Will the government provide assumptions or other constraints on the scope of these optional sub-CLINs to ensure comparable proposals will be received?

See PWS Enclosure 2C. The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

Easements (CLIN 0006): Can you provide details on what easement support is required. Will an EBS be required by the contractor. Are there properties identified that will need this easement support? Please provide list of properties.

See PWS section 4.9.2.

Well Repair, Replacement, Abandonment (CLIN 0007): What are the dimensions of the 2 concrete pads? There doesn’t appear to be sub-CLINs for well replacement (i.e., installation), only replacement of the well completions. Is that correct? What type of well completions require replacement (i.e., flush mount, stickup, Augustyn, bollards). What are the well diameters screen lengths, surface completion, and surrounding native material replacement requirements for the well abandonments (e.g., are the wells located in concrete, asphalt, or soil).

The dimensions will depend on the wells in question. Only repair/replacement of the well completions is included in the Sub-CLINs.

The Contractor shall repair well completion to its original condition. The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

DB001 (CLIN 0012): The sub-CLIN structure starts at FS which would infer that the RI has been completed, nature and extent of contaminants defined, risk assessed, and site COCs identified. Can you provide the RI Report? Can you indicate what COCs have been identified and what risks are associated with the site. The PWS indicates a TCRA is being performed. Can you provide the Action Memo?

No there will not be an RI. The contamination at the site will be further investigated on a separate contract resulting in a TCRA. The site condition after the TCRA will be documented in an after-action report.

The Action Memo for the TCRA is still under development.

Refer to the presentation titled "Proposed Course of Action for DB001 -dated April 25th 2019" in the GFI for more information.

LF012 (CLIN 0015): Is the reference to 2013 FYR accurate, or should it be 2018 FYR. Performance objective 2 references LTM. Is this accurate or should this be RA-O monitoring.

The 2013 FYR Report is the correct reference. LTM is the correct performance objective. LTM performance objective is in reference to the previous RC requirement.

SS112 (CLIN 0028): a) Based on 30 Aug 2019 PWS, the PO for SS112 is RI addendum. How big an area or how many additional residences require investigation.

b) ROD dated September 2013 is missing figures, specifically Figure 7-1 that would indicate the area of contamination under consideration for removal. The After Action Report dated July 2015 indicates areas of PCB contamination that still exist below hardscape (Figure 1-2) and areas further delineated along Charlestown Loop with recommendations for asphalt and soil removal (Figure 4-1).

c) Based on the CLIN structure dated 30 Aug 2019, the contamination is in the area of Building 4221A, but the background materials do not indicate a Building 4221A. Is further RI to be completed around Building 4122A where soil borings indicate that PCBs still exist? Is the RI limited to the area around Building 4221A?

See revised Sub-CLIN Structure. The reference to “Building 4221A” in Sub-CLIN 0029AB will be revised to “Building 4122A”. The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

OT106 (CLIN0019): Per the 31 May 2018 letter to the EPA and UDEQ, 124 sites are at NFRAP status. Since these were NFRAP’d prior to the RI, per AFI32-70202 Section 14.3, should it be assumed that the RI/FS and PP/ROD for OT106 required for this solicitation is limited to the four sites and contaminants cited in the 31 May 2018 letter to the EPA, i.e., Sites 1, 2405, and 2406 with PCB soil contamination exceedances, and Site 265 with TCE in soil contamination?

Yes, the work is limited to the four sub-sites listed. See answer to Question 24.

Per Q&A (#6) dated 19 September (and PWS Section 1.2.1) performance models are required for all sites that do not have a PO of LTM and have remedy planned and/or in place. The PO for OT106 is achieve ROD (i.e., a planned remedy).

Will OT106 require a performance model? If so, will it be required for inclusion in the PMP, or only after the ROD is approved?

A performance model is required for OT106. Three sampling data points, is all that is needed to initiate or a data line on a performance model. The performance period for OT106 is “within the POP” of 10 years. A performance model that sets up an understanding of pre-remedy implementation performance is extremely valuable to the Air Force. The performance model should be included in the work planning documents.

SD107 (CLIN 0020): Will the sub-CLIN structure be revised to include Phase 1 of Interim AF guidance for 1,2-D. See PWS section 8.1.1 and Sub-CLIN 0004.

OT097 (CLIN 0018): SubCLIN 0018CK is the last of the CLIN and indicates “…complete the Reduce LCC Summary Report- Year 10”. Is this report the same as the “Summary and Forecast Report indicated in the PWS? If so, is it due 2 years prior to end of PoP as indicated in PWS or in year 10 as indicated in 0018CK? If not, please provide detail as to the contents of this report. This same question applies to CLINs 0020, 0021, and 0031.

See revised Sub-CLIN Structure.

SS017 (CLIN 0021): The sub-CLIN structure appears to have objectives that are not captured in Table 1 of the PWS (i.e., ESD for aeration curtain, decommissioning of aeration curtain). Will these be included as Table 1 objectives? Will the sub-CLIN structure be revised to include Phase 1 of Interim AF guidance for 1,2-D. Is soil removal/disposal required?

Objectives in the Sub-CLIN Structure that are not included in Table 1 of the PWS are optional and contingent on completion of other activities/decisions. These Sub-CLINs may not be exercised, therefore, they have not been included as requirements in Table 1. See revised Sub- CLIN Structure for 1,4 dioxane Phase I.

SS089 (CLIN 0024): Will the sub-CLIN structure be revised to include Phase 1 of Interim AF guidance for 1,2-D. See PWS section 8.1.1 and Sub-CLIN 0004.

SS090 (CLIN 0025): Will the sub-CLIN structure be revised to include Phase 1 of Interim AF guidance for 1,2-D. See PWS section 8.1.1 and Sub-CLIN 0004.

SS091 (CLIN 0026): Will the sub-CLIN structure be revised to include Phase 1 of Interim AF guidance for 1,2-D. See PWS section 8.1.1 and Sub-CLIN 0004.

64 SS109 (CLIN 0027): What is the DD amendment for? See revised PWS.

WP007 (CLIN 0032): An RI seems out of line with AF policy for 1,4-D. Should a full RI be completed (i.e., inclusive of a risk assessment) or Phase II of the AF policy.

The RI for 1,4-dioxane is aligned with AF policy.

Is the WBS required to be submitted as a standalone submittal outside of the IMS/Microsoft™ Project file? If yes, is there a required format?

Yes. Refer to the Section 4.1 in the PWS and the ORC Project Management Plan (PMP) Guidance (Performance Models; Document Quality Guidance; CLIN, WBS, IMS, and MPS).

Please confirm the WBS dictionary is to be submitted as part of the PMP but is not required for submittal as part of the proposal. If the WBS dictionary is required for the proposal, please clarify as to what level the Government would like to see the WBS Dictionary and provide an example for reference. What is the required submittal format for the WBS Dictionary (i.e. MS Excel) in addition to the IMS?

The WBS and WBS Dictionary are required to be submitted as part of the proposal. The WBS Dictionary is typically a Word document. However, MS Excel is acceptable. Per the submittal requirements of the PWS, submit in native format. Regarding the level in the Dictionary: the Contractor needs to provide sufficient detail to illustrate the decomposition of the work for each work package. Guidance regarding the information that should be included is included in the ORC Project Management Plan (PMP) Guidance (Performance Models; Document Quality Guidance; CLIN, WBS, IMS, and MPS).

When the WBS Dictionary is submitted, which fields in the WBS Dictionary will be required? Will it be limited to:

a. WBS Element Title

b. WBS element Code

c. Site and CLIN/Sub-CLIN associated with the WBS Element

d. Performance Objective

The above fields are those the AF has provided. The Contractor needs to provide additional fields sufficient to illustrate the decomposition of the work for each work package. Guidance regarding the information that should be included is included in the ORC Project Management Plan (PMP) Guidance (Performance Models; Document Quality Guidance;

CLIN, WBS, IMS, and MPS).

GFI document numbers 49 through 60 present Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plans for Hill AFB Operable Units 1 through 12. GFI document number 61 is the Hill AFB Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plan and Summary Guidance. Each Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plan states the purpose is to provide comprehensive performance monitoring to determine if the selected remedy(ies) are meeting the remedial action objectives presented in the respective Record of Decision and identifies multiple very specific Performance Objectives with a set of prescriptive Acceptable Ranges. The Hill AFB Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plan and Summary Guidance states the starting point is a Performance Objective, or set of Performance Objectives, that specifies what a remedial system is intended to accomplish (e.g., inhibit contaminant mass from leaving the source area), or how the remedy is expected to affect the contaminated geosystem. With regard to these Hill AFB Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plans:

a) Will there be ORC Guidance issued for the Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plan Performance Objectives?

b) Do the Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plan Performance Objectives supersede the PWS Performance Objectives as provide in Table 1?

c) Are the Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plan Performance Objectives an addition to the Performance Objectives identified in the PWS Table 1? If not, as written and presented they are redundant or incongruent with the PWS Performance Objectives as provided in Table 1.

d) The PWS states the Contractor shall maintain compliance with all Decision Documents and Permits. LTM and RA-O in accordance with the approved Decision Documents are established as Performance Objectives in Table 1. The Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plan Performance Objectives appear to be the Air Force interpretation of how to maintain compliance with Decision Document and Permits. Does the Contractor have the prerogative on how to meet the Performance Objective of LTM and RA-O in accordance with the approved Decision Documents or must each Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plan Performance Objective be attained? If the Contractor has the prerogative, will the USACE clarify that the Hill AFB Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plans and Summary Guidance are for information only?

No, guidance for the Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plans will not be issued. The Plans are not Performance Objectives (POs) and do not supersede the POs in Table 1 of the PWS. The Contractor shall adhere to the POs as required by Table 1 of the PWS. The Remedial Action Objectives Monitoring Plans and Summary Guidance were provided for information only. The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

For sites with institutional controls, do these get reported in site-specific reports, or are they reported in a standalone annual report inclusive of all sites?

LUC assessments should be documented in site-specific reports as well a stand-alone annual summary report for all sites.

Are there any additional Hill AFB-specific requirements that are not specified in the PWS (e.g., traffic control plans for work near AFB roads, inventory and/or reporting for materials kept or used on site [diesel fuel, herbicides, chemicals for remedial systems, etc.], confined space inventories, waste inventory/reporting, etc.)?

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

Q&A from 19 August indicated all communication with third party or the public need to be documented. How does this get documented and conveyed to the Air Force?

The Contractor shall provide the AF POC of all third party or public communications in writing.

Section 8.8 of the PWS indicates a drum will be removed within three days after being filled (or within 90-days of start of accumulation, whichever is sooner). Is it an AF instruction or regulation that dictates removal within 3 days of filling the drum? If waste requires characterization prior to disposal, where can the drum be staged during characterization and can it remain in a staging area longer than 3 days while characterization is occurring? It typically takes longer than 3 days to contract and schedule pickup for disposal. Further, batching of wastes for disposal of multiple drums at a time results in reduced costs. Shipping and disposal of individual drums will result in additional costs to the AF. If a timeframe other than 90-days is required for removal, can this be changed to 30 days to allow for batching for shipping and disposal.

The 3-day requirement is for long term maintenance and remedial action activities, where the waste profiles have been established and usually accumulated following a hazardous waste satellite accumulation site rule

(40CFR262.15).

74 General: Have any sampling frequencies at any of the sites changed since the 5-Year review that the proposing Contractors should be aware of?

The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site.

75 PWS, Table 1, Performance Table: Is the Contractor responsible for making repairs to the SMS and/or HEDP if it were to become damaged during use by ORC or other contractors?

Yes. The requirement is to operate and maintain in accordance with the O&M manuals.

76 PWS, Table 1, Performance Table: Is the Contractor providing costs for implementing a remedy post-ROD at LF012? See revised PWS. The remedy implementation per the ROD Amendment addressing the 2013 Five-Year Review is not part of the scope.

77 PWS, Table 1, Performance Table: Is there additional information, a summary table, or data dump available for sites included as part of OT106?

Everything available has been provided in the GFI.

78 Att C-1 Hill AFB_PWS Enclosure 2B GFI List, Hill AFB Off-Base Utility Accounts Table: The monthly utility costs for NDSD listed in the GFI table are not consistent with the given unit rate ($2.15 per 1,000 gallons) and documented disposal volumes in the Quarterly Effluent Discharge Report. The GFI table does not mention the monthly costs associated with location U8-690 (OU 8 Base Boundary Hydraulic Containment System) which, according to the Quarterly Effluent Discharge Report, discharges to the NDSD. Please clarify.

Noted. The current rate for Industrial wastewater disposal with NDSD is $2.15 per 1,000 gallons. There was an error in the spreadsheet used to generate the Hill AFB Off-Base Utility Accounts Table. The estimated monthly fee for the OU5 Groundwater Extraction Trench System is $1,875, not $165. The Table provided in the GFI will be updated.

79 Contractors have received the GFI report titled Site OT106 Deferred Sites, Buildings 1, 2401, 2405, 2406, 2407, 2408, and 11420 PCB Sampling Analytical Data, Hill Air Force Base, Utah (EA 2019). The report includes Table 1 which is a summary of the soil samples collected at each building and the corresponding laboratory analytical report job number.

Importantly, Table 1 shows that numerous other samples were collected and analyzed than the indicated in planning document titled Site OT106 – Deferred Sites Remedial Investigation Site-Specific Work Plan and Addendum No. 001 (EA 2015).

The OT106 sub-CLINS include (0019AA) Achieve RI/FS Work Plan and (0019AB) Achieve RI/FS. Based on the GFI provided to the contractors, the analytical data packages, in the absence of a report of findings or figures with plotted data, do not indicate the completeness of the characterization activities conducted at OT106 or a basis for the contractor to develop further RI/FS actions stipulated under this procurement.

The Contractor shall develop the RI/FS Work Plan for additional investigation activities to fully delineate the contamination at the site based on currently available data.

Hill AFB Q&As