Amend 2 Response to RFI_105mm_munition_ as of 23 March 2021.pdf

Additional Questions Submitted after ProjNet was closed. 3/19/21

Government responses in bold.

Will there an opportunity to post additional questions on ProjNet? No

The new government responses to the ProjNet inquiry (3/18/2021) has resulted in conflicting answers with respect to 105mm projectile. Would you be able to provide a clarification in ProjNet or in the upcoming Amendment? There is no evidence of use of the 105mm at former Fort Douglas; however, we are retaining it as a suspected munition for the site. A general reminder: any deviations from the current CSM presented in proposals should be fully supported with all assumptions clearly stated.

The PWS, Section 4.2.3.1 and the notes from the Systematic Project Meeting 1 and 2 (pages 42, 43, and 70 of 101 of the pdf) clearly indicate the need to characterize groundwater, surface water and soil. However, other sections of the same document suggest only soil sampling is required (e.g., page 74 of 101 of the pdf). Groundwater and/or surface water are not mentioned in the Ft. Douglas PWS, please confirm these media are not included in this project. Addressing these media will impact technical approaches and pricing. The sample media listed in Section 4.2.3.1 are examples of media that could potentially be affected by MC at any given MRS. However, the proposals need only to address sample media that have likely potential for contamination from MC at the Ft Douglas Impact Area MRS.

The notes from the Systematic Project meeting 1 and 2 (pages 49 of 101 of the pdf) suggests that metals and explosives will be analyzed within the HD areas.

a) Given the very limited sampling in the SI and the detections and exceedances of defaults of PAHs, perchlorate and nitroglycerin please confirm if these analytes should also be included in the suite of analytes for the RI. Further, the list of munition types and small arms listed in the ASR and SI would suggest a wider suite of analytes than simply metals and explosives. Please confirm if those analytes that will likely be required to complete the RI and associated risk assessments are to be included in the scope of this project. Per the meeting notes provided as an attachment to the PWS, during the first two SPP meetings, the PDT and stakeholders determined that MC sampling for metals and explosives is a required definable feature of work. The analyte list could be expanded as determined by the PDT and stakeholders in future SPP meetings and/or the finalization of Worksheets 10 and 11 in the UFP-QAPP. For the purposes of the proposal, please assume that additional analytes are likely required to be sampled within HD areas or support an alternative approach.

b) Please verify that sampling is required in low use and no use impact areas to support determination and the limits of these areas; and The contractor’s proposed technical approach will determine if there is a requirement for sampling in low use or no use areas.

c) Please verify that sampling within the small arms ranges/skeet ranges that sampling will also be required to determine the nature and extent of contamination and sufficient data to complete the RI and associated risk assessments. The contractor’s proposed technical approach will determine if there is a requirement for sampling within the small arms ranges/skeet ranges.