Hill_ORC_RFIs_w_Responses_20190919.pdf

General:

1. The current CLIN structure provided lacks a level of detail expected in a CLIN structure, and the Sub-CLINs and PWS do not line up in several instances, based on the Draft PWS dated July 3, 2019. Will the USACE be issuing a detailed CLIN structure that aligns with the Draft PWS and QASP and IMS? Some examples of the level of detail that would be expected include the following:

* The sub-CLINs do not include milestones such as closeout reports, well destruction reports, remedy implementation, and other major milestones that would be expected in a sub- CLIN structure based on the Draft PWS, and that were part of the previous Performance-Based Remediation (PBR) program.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: These milestones were not included as Sub-CLINs under the PBRs. The Offerors may propose milestones in support of achievement of the Sub-CLIN objectives in accordance with the PWS section 4.3.

* In several instances, the Sub-CLIN is listed as ‘Optional’ when there is the aligning Performance Objective listed in Table 1 (i.e. LF011). How should that be interpreted?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: These Sub-CLINs have been revised from “Optional” to “Optional Task”. Optional Task Sub-CLINs are those which the AF needs the ability and flexibility to award throughout the contract Period of Performance. Most sites have multiple Sub-CLINs leading to achievement of the Table 1 PO for funding purposes. Any Sub-CLIN not exercised at the time of award is an option; however, it is the AF’s intent to fund subsequent Sub-CLINs upon demonstration of bona fide need and funds availability up to and including the Sub-CLINs that represent achievement of the site PO.

* The CLIN structure lacks a breakdown for milestones such as the PMP including a Draft, Final, and Updates.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: These items are milestone payments, not Sub-CLIN objectives.

The Offerors may propose milestone payments in support of achievement of the Sub-CLIN objectives in accordance with the PWS section 4.3.

* There are currently two CLINs for Updates to QPPs.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: There are three Sub-CLINs for PMP, QASP, and QPP updates to allow the Offerors to make updates to these documents throughout the ten-year POP.

* CLIN Number 0006 includes “Complete Real Estate and Easement Support“. Is this CLIN intended and if it is could you please explain its intention?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See PWS section 4.9.2.

* CLIN 0007 includes reference to well repair, replacement, and abandonment items;

however, a scope associated with these items cannot be located within the Draft PWS.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See PWS section 8.1.1.a and 8.5.

* There is currently no Sub-CLIN for implementing a remedy at OU9.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: OU 9 remedies are already implemented per the OU 9 ROD (Sep 2015).

* OU-11/OT097 states that the Evaluation and rehabilitation of the pump and treat and SVE systems is an option task on the Sub-CLIN, but a required PO is in the PWS.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is an Optional Task. If the Sub-CLIN is exercised the work shall be completed in accordance with Table 1.

* Sub-CLINs do not match the PWS for SS017, include Building Demo and ESD. Why are there two different line items for ESDs? (turn off aeration curtain, then general ESD).

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See revised Sub-CLIN Structure.

2. The sub-CLINs for the alternate objectives performance objectives do not directly indicate whether the award is based on a pilot or full scale remedy implementation. What will be implemented for the remainder of the period of performance if, for example, a remedy evaluation process leads to a revision to a DD and/or installation of additional remedies. Is the pricing expectation that additional remedial action would be full scale or a pilot test level evaluation?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Sub-CLINs state “Complete Pilot Study(ies)/Treatability Test(s)”. See PWS section 1.2.3.2. The Offerors are not responsible for implementing the revised DD for these sites.

3. Is Operate SMS and/or the Heavy Equipment Decon Pad intended to be included in Table 1? Will additional direction on the scope of this task be included in the Final PWS and/or will the SMS Operation and Maintenance Manual be provided?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, it is intended to be in Table 1. The O&M Manual will be provided as GFI.

4. Existing PBR Contractors have access to ERPIMs database. Is the AF amenable to [PBR contractors] accessing ERPIMs data available for Hill AFB?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. ERPIMS data will be downloaded and provided to all Offerors as Government-Furnished Information (GFI).

5. Can the USACE provide the Interim AF Guidance on Sampling and Response Actions for 1,4-Dioxane at Operational and BRAC installations. August 2013, as referenced in the Draft

PWS?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, this will be provided.

6. Is the PWS asking for Performance Models for soil-only remediation sites?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See PWS section 1.2.1. Per 1.2.1, “The Contractor shall develop performance models for all sites listed in Table 1 of this PWS that do not have a PO of Long Term Management (LTM) and have a remedy planned and/or in place.”

Site-Specific Questions:

7. There are no Decision Documents available for OU14; however, the Draft PWS states that the RA(O) is to be conducted in accordance with the Decision Documents. Can the AF provide these documents?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, these documents will be provided.

8. Section 1.2.3 of the Draft PWS, last sentence of the first paragraph references PWS section 1.2.2.1. Is this intended to be Section 1.3.2.1?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See revised PWS.

9. For SS112, will the contractor be responsible for removing and disposing of the known PCB-contaminated soil beneath the SW portion of the Charlestown Loop Roadway, or does Hill AFB intend to continue maintaining the protectiveness of the hardscape?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, the Offeror will be responsible for removal and disposal of the known PCB contaminated soil at Charlestown Loop and Building 4221A Car Port Area.

10. For SS112, is the AF expecting a Supplemental RI WP and a RI field effort, or is the expectation to compile existing Supplemental RI data?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Contractor should review the data provided and propose their approach for achieving an RI Addendum.

11. For SS112, how many structures/homes are currently scoped for construction and therefore subject to sampling in the first year of the contract?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The structures are shown in Figure 1-1 in the After Action Report – OU13 Soil Investigation Beneath Charlestown Loop and Charlestown and Trenton Circle Roadways (July 2015) which is available in the Administrative Record. Note Sub-CLIN 0029AA will not be exercised until the buildings are demolished.

12. For SS017, does the RI/FS reference the rail shop as well?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See revised PWS.

13. For DB001, is ORC contractor required to perform routine grounds maintenance (e.g., mowing) post-time critical removal action (TCRA)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes. See revised Sub-CLIN Structure.

14. Will AFCEC be providing additional information regarding OT106 other than what was included in the last GFI release?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: All of the available information for OT106 has been provided.

15. Are the monitoring wells still intact at ST061 and ST071 or have they been abandoned?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Monitoring wells are intact at ST061. There are no monitoring wells at ST071.