WSMR_SITE_VISIT_1_and_2_NOV_2016_QUES_W9124J-17-R-0006_ERMA_IDIQ_FY18_USG_RESP_6_Dec_2016.pdf

Question

Number Reference

Response Type

(Please specify

Contracting or

Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation

Reference

(Government)

Updates to the

Solicitation

(Government)

Q1

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)

Hazardous Waste Bureau (HWB) charges regulatory review fees for reviewing all documents (NMAC 20.4.2.205-210).

Who is responsible for paying these fees, the contractor or

WSMR?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6 Dec 2016.

WSMR PWS

Attachment #2

Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6

Dec 2016, Table 1.

Q2

Since WSMR is an active range, how often and much downtime can be anticipated from road blocks and other

WSMR activities?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Offeror must be prepared and account for announced and unannounced testing which may close all or portions of working areas under the Live Task Order. Expected duration of testing closures is an estimate, even if provided by range control. This information is available on the WSMR public web site.

Q3

WSMR 81 & 82 (SWMUs 86 & 87) Main Post Sanitary &

Construction Landfills are landfills that are listed on WSMRs

RCRA Permit. These landfills have are also permitted and have been closed and capped under the regulatory authority of the

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Solid Waste

Bureau (SWB) as Corrective Action Complete (CAC) with

Controls, consisting of long term groundwater monitoring

(LTM). A Post Clouse Care Plan (PCCP) is in place with SWB for this groundwater monitoring in accordance with the PCCP.

The HWB issued an Approval with Modifications letter on

16OCT14 for the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Report dated

MAY 2014 for these landfills. The approved RFI Report includes documentation between WSMR and SWB regarding regulation of these landfills including the CAC with controls and the approved PCCP for these landfills (Dated 20JUN2011). The

Approval with Modifications letter issued by HWB is requiring continued groundwater monitoring of the same monitoring wells that are currently being sampled for SWB with the possibility of installing additional wells. Reference Q3a-3b.

Q3a

To avoid duplication of effort and confusion which NMED regulatory agency has primacy over these landfills SWB or

HWB?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: The

HWB is the office that determines compliance with the RCRA permit.

Q3b

If additional groundwater monitoring wells become required by HWB before POP is complete will additional funds be added to the contract to cover the cost of additional groundwater monitoring well installation?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: No, Offeror should factor this variability into proposal.

Q4

WSMR 70 (SWMUs 119 & 120) Stallion Range Landfills are landfills that are listed on WSMRs RCRA Permit. These landfill cells are permitted and have been closed under the regulatory authority of the SWB as CAC with No Controls.

The SWB gave an exemption for PCC groundwater monitoring due to the small size of the landfill cells. There is an active Stallion Range Landfill cell which is not on WSMRs

RCRA Permit. The HWB issued an Approval with

Modifications letter on 13MAY2014 for the RCRA Facility

Investigation (RFI) Report dated JAN2013 for SWMUs 119 &

120. The Approval with Modifications letter issued by HWB is requiring long term groundwater monitoring (LTM) due to the fact that the landfill is active and a work plan for a survey of all four existing wells. The active landfill is regulated by

SWB. Reference Q4a-4d.

Q4a

Which NMED regulatory agency has primacy over these landfills SWB or HWB? The direction followed will affect approach and pricing.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q3a.

WSMR, NM (1 NOVEMBER 2016/2 NOVEMBER 2016) SITE VISIT QUESTIONS (DUE BY 30 NOVEMBER 2016)

USG RESPONSE 6 DECEMBER 2016

joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text

DRAFT RFP W9124J-17-R-0006

ERMA IDIQ FY18

joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text

Q4b

Is there an approved sampling plan or a sampling plan currently in review with HWB? If not, will a sampling plan have to be submitted for HWB review under this contract?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: There are no existing Contracts for these

Sites listed in the WSMR PWS.

The Army has provided all information received under prior

Contracts. The Offeror is responsible for determining a technical approach based on the

Live Task Order requirements, Government Furnished

Information provided and their technical expertise.

Q4c What is the current depth to water at this site?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: This information was provided in the

Government Furnished

Information.

Q4d

Are dedicated pumps in each monitoring well? If so, are the pumps operable?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: This information was provided in the

Government Furnished

Information.

Q5

During the site walk it appeared that WSMR 79 (SWMU 16)

Heavy Equipment Wash Pad and Drain site is still actively in use and USAEC representative indicated they would inquire on the status of this site. Is this site still actively in use?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: This site has been removed from the

PWS. Reference Revised WSMR

PWS (Attachment #2) dated 6 Dec

2016.

WSMR PWS

Attachment #2

Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6

Dec 2016, Table 1.

Q6

NMED approved a background study for metals in soils which applies to several sites with a performance objective of CAC on this Draft RFP. Can USACE confirm that the approved background level for arsenic in soils at these sites is lower that the New Mexico Risk Based Screening levels?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: No, they cannot confirm. Refer to

Government Furnished

Information.

Q7

What are the anticipated durations for the following Army activities for scheduling purposes? Reference Q7a-7c.

Q7a Document review (e.g., Work Plans and Reports)

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Offerors should allow 45 days for

Army review of documents.

Reference Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6 Dec 2016, Part 5.

WSMR PWS

Attachment #2

Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6

Dec 2016, Part 5.

Q7b WSMR Staffing for submittal to NMED

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Offerors should allow 14 days for this process including OPSEC.

Q7c WSMR Staffing for OPSEC

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q7b.

Q8

Will weekly status calls with the Army be required under this task order?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Offeror should be prepared to convey to the Army as necessary information to ensure Live Task Order is proceeding on schedule and in a technically acceptable manner.

Q9

Please clarify the requirement and duration for CLIN 0008

CAC Petition for WSMR-30 (SWMU-80). The NMED NOD dated February 5, 2015, states “Soil samples must be collected from the backfilled material and from native soils at the bottom of the excavation to confirm that all contaminated soil was removed and that the soil meets applicable soil screening levels.” Does the Army have additional documentation to provide confirmation? If not, the 24 month POP is insufficient to prepare a work plan (with NMED review) and conduct field work prior to CAC petition preparation and approval.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: If

Offeror believes that insufficient time is allotted for completion of task, provide a rationale for a revised timeline.

Q10

Please clarify the requirement for CLIN 0009 CAC Petition with controls for WSMR-56 (SWMU 137). The NMED letter, dated August 5, 2014, approved the RFI report with no modifications.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Refer to installation RCRA permit and

NMAC. Depending on the approval of the CAC Petition.

WSMR PWS

Attachment #2

Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6

Dec 2016, Table 1.

joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text

DRAFT RFP W9124J-17-R-0006

ERMA IDIQ FY18

Q11

Please clarify the requirement for CLIN 0009 CAC Petition with controls for WSMR-58 (SWMU 153). The NMED letter, dated December 12, 2014, approved the RFI report with modifications that do not require any site controls.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Refer to installation RCRA permit and

NMAC. Depending on the approval of the CAC Petition.

WSMR PWS

Attachment #2

Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6

Dec 2016, Table 1.

Q12

Please clarify the requirement for CLIN 0009 CAC Petition with controls for CCWS-04 (WSMR-11). The NMED letter, dated January 25, 2012, approved the RFI report with modifications that do not require any site controls.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Refer to installation RCRA permit and

NMAC. Depending on the approval of the CAC Petition.

WSMR PWS

Attachment #2

Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6

Dec 2016, Table 1.

Q13

Please clarify the NMED review period for a Closure Report

Work Plan since this document is not included in Table 5 of

NMAC 20.4.2.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Refer to installation RCRA permit and

NMAC 20.4.2.

Q14

For CLIN 0010, Please clarify if the background study listed in the NMED Closure Plan, dated August 18, 2016, is site-specific or global background study.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: The background study is site specific.

Q15

For CLIN 0008, WSMR-73 (SWMU-17) CAC Petition, the

NMED in their letter dated February 5, 2015, stated “The

Permittee must propose additional investigation at this

SWMU. The 24 month POP is insufficient to prepare a work plan (with NMED review) and conduct field work prior to

CAC petition preparation and approval.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q9.

Q16

Attachment 2, Draft WSMR

PWS Technical

The Draft RFP states (Section 1.1.3) that the WSMR RCRA permit was last modified on 12/3/2009. This date appears to coincide with the date of the last permit renewal. The NMED's website list a permit modification (Class 3) on 2/10/2016.

Please clarify.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: A Class

3 permit modification is administrative in nature and does not represent a change in technical requirements.

Q17

Attachment 2, Draft WSMR

PWS, Table 1

Contract

Requirements Technical

WSMR-32 Main Post Former FFTA Waste Pile is identified as

SWMU-32. Table 4-1 of the RCRA permit identifies WSMR-

32 as SWMU-22. Please clarify which SWMU designation is correct.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: The correct designation is SWMU-22.

Reference Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6 Dec 2016.

WSMR PWS

Attachment #2

Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6

Dec 2016, Table 1.

Q18

Attachment 2, Draft WSMR

PWS, Table 1

Contract

Requirements Technical

NMED correspondence dated 2/5/2015 regarding the Class 3 modification for SWMUs 12, 14, 16, 17, 22 and 80 references the NMED approved (2/2014) Soil Background Study for

Main Post. Please provide this background study as it was not included with the previously provided GFI.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Government will provide via DVD.

To receive document(s) please send an email request to joanna.b.cox.civ@mail.mil by

Noon (CST) Monday, 12 December

2016, to include Recipients Name, Company Name, Complete

Physical Address and Phone number.

Q19

Attachment 2, Draft WSMR

PWS, Table 1

Contract

Requirements Technical

For a number of the sites listed in Table 1, an Option is listed as Complete the Corrective Action Completion (CAC) Petition per RCRA Permit through administrative complete determination, including responses to NODs within 24 months of award of CLIN. Please clarify: a) will these CAC Petitions be with or without controls, and b) does "administrative complete determination" refer to the NMED permit review process or does this mean administrative closure of the site and a change in the RCRA permit, Appendix 4 table listings?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

a) CAC Petition prepared should be appropriate for the conditions of each individual site. b)

Administrative complete determination refers to the NMED permit review process.

Q20

Attachment 2, Draft WSMR

PWS, Table 1

Contract

Requirements Technical

CCWS-71 (SWMUs-93A/B through SWMU-100. The NMED approved closure plan requires a site-specific background study for metals in soil. The work plan is due to NMED on

5/1/2017. Will the background study be completed by another contractor or is this the responsibility of the winning bidder?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: The site specific background study has not been prepared for site CCWS-

71.

Q21

Attachment 2, Draft WSMR

PWS, Table 1

Contract

Requirements Technical

WSMR-70 (SWMUs 119 and 120). NMED correspondense dated 5/13/14 requires the elevation of the monitoring wells to be surveyed. Has this task been completed or should this be included in the annual groundwater monitoring work plan?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: The monitoring wells at WSMR-70 have not been surveyed as required by NMED correspondence dated

5/13/14.

Q22

Attachment 2, Draft WSMR

PWS, Table 1

Contract

Requirements Technical

WSMR-70 (SWMUs 119 and 120) - please confirm that only one round of sampling is required each year, and please provide the most recent annual sampling report.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Refer to the Government Furnished

Information.

joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text

DRAFT RFP W9124J-17-R-0006

ERMA IDIQ FY18

Q23

Attachment 2, Draft WSMR

PWS, Table 1

Contract

Requirements Technical

Please confirm that PFCs are not a COPC at WSMR-32

(SWMU-22) or CCWS-04 (SWMU-162).

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Army policy, at this time, does not consider PFOS/PFOA a COPC under the installation restoration program.

Q24

Attachment 2, Draft WSMR

PWS, Table 1

Contract

Requirements Technical

It appears that multiple sites/SWMUs (up to 10) can be grouped into one RFI work plan/report or CAC petitions.

Please confirm this will be the process under this TO.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: The proposed approach may be appropriate if it will achieve the

Live Task Order PWS objectives.

Q25

Attachment 2, Draft WSMR

PWS, Table 1

Contract

Requirements Technical

WSMR-67 - it is assumed that a removal action will be required at this site as part of the ACA. For bidding purposes, please provide a volume of contaminated soil/asphalt which will require removal and off-site disposal.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: These estimates should be readily calculated from the documents previously provided.

Q26

Attachment 2, Draft WSMR

PWS, Table 1

Contract

Requirements Technical

WSMR-32 (SWMU-22) - has the 1997 Site Closeout Report for SWMU-22 been submitted to NMED for review? USG Response 6 Dec 2016: No.

Q27

Attachment 2, Draft WSMR

PWS, Table 1

Contract

Requirements Technical

WSMR-56 (SWMU-137) - the Option CLIN for this site is to implement the approved CAC Petion with Controls. NMED approved CAC without Controls in their letter dated 8/5/2014.

Please clarify if the Option CLIN contract requirement is correct for this site.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q10.

Q28 General - IDW Technical

Will the contractor be responsible for disposal of all IDW off-site, or will the contractor be permitted to dispose of IDW via

WSMR's waste stream (with appropriate documentation to waste status, etc.)?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Offeror is responsible for disposal of all

IDW generated. "However, the

Contractor shall coordinate waste characterization and manifesting through the WSMR HazWaste

Management Center." Reference

Revised WSMR PWS (Attachment

#2) dated 6 Dec 2016, Part 4.

WSMR PWS

Attachment #2

Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6

Dec 2016, Part 4.

Q29

General -working hours Technical

When working on-site, are contractor work hours restricted

(e.g., 0800 hours through 1700 hours), or can contractor personnel work extended hours to meet daily project requirements?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Extended work hours shall be coordinated through WSMR

Environmental Office therefore, WSMR security is aware after-hour activities will occur. Details will be discussed in the kickoff meeting.

Q30

General -

Section 1.1.3 Technical

Section 1.1.3 mentions the AEDB; will the contractor be required to have access/enter information into the AEDB as part of the work at WSMR?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Contractor should be prepared to provide data in a Government specified format allowing for proper and rapid upload into the database of record. At this time the Army is not planning to have contractor access/enter information into its environmental database.

Q31

General - Main

Post Technical

One (or more) of the NODs received from NMED cites the lack of groundwater investigation at several SWMUs. Is there a groundwater study available for the Main Post that has been approved by NMED? USG Response 6 Dec 2016: No.

Q32

SWMUs 119 and 120 Technical

Will the contractor provide an annual report for SWMUs 119 and 120 only? Or will the contractor also provide the Annual

Long Term Groundwater Monitoring Report for all of

WSMR?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: The

Contractor shall provide a report for SWMUs 119 and 120 to the installation for incorporation into the WSMR Annual Long Term

Groundwater Monitoring Report.

Q33

Section 1.6.12

Key Personnel Technical

Do the three key personnel for the WSMR task order need to be included as key personnel for the overall contract? If "no", where in Factor 2 should the sample task key personnel present their quals?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference REVISED DRAFT RFP dated 6 December 2016, Section L, Factor 2.

REVISED

DRAFT RFP

REVISED DRAFT RFP

dated 6 Dec 2016, Section

L, Factor 2.

joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text

DRAFT RFP W9124J-17-R-0006

ERMA IDIQ FY18

Q34

Section 5.5

Public

Involvement Technical

For the sample task, are any public meetings/briefings/ presentations required?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Contractor should expect to participate and support public meetings consistent with RCRA, the installation's Permit, and Live

Task Order objectives.

Q35 Security Technical

During work at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), will

WSMR personnel be required to escort contractor or will contractor be able to perform work without WSMR escort?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: The

Government expects most contractor personnel will be able to perform work without WSMR escort, however, there may be Sites or times that require escort.

Q36 Security Technical

Will contractor personnel be able to obtain WSMR entrance badges or passes or will contractor personnel need to report to visitor center for daily site entrance?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q35.

Q37 General Technical

Will contractor personnel have access to a site water source for investigation waters, or will contractor need to bring a truck mounted water tank onsite?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Contractor will have access to a

WSMR water source, but the contractor is responsible for getting water to specific job sites.

Q38 General Technical

Has site wide groundwater sampling occurred at or near the

SWMUs as requested by NMED NOD letter dated 5 February

2015, Re: Petition to Perform Class 3 Permit Modification to

Change Status of Solid Waste Management Units 12, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 80 from Corrective Action Required to Corrective

Action Complete with Controls in General Comment #2?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Refer to the Government Furnished

Information.

Q39 General Technical

Contractor requests a copy of the "Soil Background Study for the Main Post" that was appproved by NMED in February

2014.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q18.

Q40 General Technical

Did WSMR receive public comments on "Draft Closure

Report for the Liquid Propellant Evaporation/Neutrilization

Pits, Solid Waste Management Units 92A/B through 100" dated May 2016. If so, contractor requests a copy of the comments. Did NMED/WSMR provide responses to the comments and has a final decision been made?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: There were no public comments.

Q41 General Technical

In the NMED 5-Feb-2015 Notice of Disapproval letter for the

Permit Modification Request, SWMU 12, 14, 16, 17, 22, and

80 from CA Required to CAC with Controls. A. General comment #2 states in part “This conclusion may well be true, but NMED cannot support termination of the investigation at the site, nor removal of those sites from WSMR's permit, without adequate commitment on WSMR's part to adequately investigate, monitor, and report on all contamination. Discuss whether or not groundwater has been sampled at the SWMUs in this PMR.” Reference Q41a-41b

Q41a

Will contractor’s under this Live TO be required to install and sample monitoring wells at one or more of these SWMUs?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Contractor is responsible for achieving Live Task Order objectives.

Q41b

There are number of requests for clarification of the text and figure revisions. Has or will a response to these questions be completed by WSMR or report author prior to Live TO award? Specifically, has WSMR responded to the request for submit a Work Plan for NMED's review no later than August

13,2015. If the Permittee is able to provide adequate information regarding SWMUs in this PMR without conducting additional field work, then the Permittee may submit a revised PMR, not to include SWMUs requiring additional investigation, for NMED review no later than May

1, 2015.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Installation has not submitted a

Work Plan for NMED's review.

Q42 General Technical

For CLIN0009 site SWMU-153 (WSMR-58), WSMR submitted a revised RFI with changed pages to NMED on 11-

Feb-2015. Has NMED responded to and approved the WSMR responses, making it possible to submit a CAC Petition?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: NMED has not yet responded to the

WSMR submission of 11-Feb-2015.

However, the WSMR response addressed the second portion of the question.

joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text

Q43 General Technical

In the past, WSMR has submitted documents to NMED covering multiple sites, for example, the Phase III RFI report.

The current RTOP groups sites under the CLINs; some CLINs have a combination of sites that appear ready for submission of CAC Petitions while others appear to need additional assessment. What is the administrative or regulatory purpose for grouping the sites under the CLINs in the live RTOP?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

The CLIN groupings do not represent a specific technical approach. Optional CLINs may change dependent on approval of

CAC Petition.

Q44

For CLIN0007 (SWMU-121, -122, -123), NMED has requested soil sampling at the location of the former Stallion asphalt tanks (NMED letter dated 19-Feb-2014). In the event contaminated soil is identified in this area exceeding applicable screening criteria, will the contractor be required to propose and implement a corrective action under this task order?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Refer to the Live Task Order objectives. Table 1

Q45 General Technical

Many of the sites in the live RTOP have a long history of sampling with numerous sampling locations and historical data. Will electronic GIS-ready data files be supplied to the contractor for use in future deliverables?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Electronic GIS-ready data files will be provided to the Live Task Order

Awardee for use in future deliverables.

Q46 General Technical

WSMR-32 and CCWS-04 are former fire fighting training areas (FFTAs). Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

(PFAS), which include PFOS/PFOA, do not have MCLs, are not listed in USEPAs IRIS database or RCRA permit

MN27502112235, and are common contaminates at FFTAs.

Attachment #1, Section C.2.3.2 limits contaminants to those with MCLs or those listed in USEPA's IRIS database. Can we assume that Contractors are not responsible for investigation of PFAS at FFTAs?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q23.

Q47 General Technical

WSMR-58 (SWMU-153) Has WSMR received approval for their 11 February 2015 submittal in response to the NMED 12

Dec 2014, approval with modifications letter?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q42.

Q48 General Technical

WSMR-70 (SWMU-119-120) Has WSMR responded to the

13 May 2014 NMED request for responses to all comments on the Final RFI Report?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: WSMR has responded to the NMED correspondence of 13 May 2014.

Government will provide via DVD.

To receive document(s) please send an email request to joanna.b.cox.civ@mail.mil by

Noon (CST) Monday, 12 December

2016, to include Recipients Name, Company Name, Complete

Physical Address and Phone number.

Q49 General Technical

During the site visit, for several of the sites, Mr. Avalos stated that the NMED had approved the RFI and the recommendation to proceed to a Corrective Action Complete

Petition. If a CACP is submitted for these sites and NMED responds with a request for additional actions such as sampling or remediation, will the contractor be responsible for those costs?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q41a.

Q50 General Technical

Other than the notice of disapproval letters for the CACPs, has there been any correspondence or communication with the

NMED HWB regarding whether work plans will be required for sampling or other activities required to address the Notice of Disapprovals for CACPs at several of the sites? Also, has

NMED indicated whether any new data collected will have to be submitted in a new report or can it be addressed in a response letter to the NOD?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q10.

Q51 General Technical

Will contractor who is awarded the task order be allowed to contact NMED directly (with WSMR participation if desired) to discuss the sites and status of documents?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: No.

WSMR participation is required for contact with NMED.

joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text

Q52 General Technical

Accelerated corrective action is the requirement at WSMR-67

Stallion Asphalt Tanks (SWMU 121-123). NMED's February

19, 2014 letter Comment 4 states: "Permittee must address the remaining TPH contamination at the site and implement the recommendation for additional soil removal and confirmation sampling ." Comment 5 requires evaluation of risks from SVOCs including benzo(a)pyrene. Photos from a

1993 Closure Report attached to a 2013 Release Assessment

Report shows a significant release and subsurface seepage

(pgs 105, 106, 107 of 1,025). The 1993 Closure Report documents removal of some contamination but in the recommendations section states there is an unknown amount of asphalt in subsurface soils. There is an undefined quantity of soil contamination that NMED is requiring to be removed.

Will the Government consider a request for equitable adjustment if contamination extends beyond the 100 foot x

100 foot x 5 foot deep (1,852 cy) volume estimated in the

1993 Closure Report? USG Response 6 Dec 2016: No.

Q53 Requirements Contracting

Section L, Volume III, Tab 2 requests information that is specific to the live task order and information specific to

Contractor's business/accounting systems in the same discussion. Example: Tab 2 (a)(ii) requests basis of labor hours which is task order specific and also discussion on hours worked per day/week/year, overtime, and leave which are business system specific. We request that Contractors be allowed to provide information that is specific to the live task order separate from business/accounting system information.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: The

Government is currently reviewing your question. If the Government decides to incorporate your suggestion/concern, those changes will be reflected in the Final RFP, if/when released.

Q54

Live Task Order

PWS Contracting

The Government’s 16 Nov responds to Question 43 on NMED and RCRA experience requirements for key personnel was:

“The Government is currently reviewing your question. If the

Government decides to incorporate your suggestion(s)/concern(s), those changes will be reflected in the Final RFP, if/when released.” An answer to this question is requested as soon as possible and prior to the RFP release date in that it could impact a firm’s pursuit of the opportunity and/or the structure of the Team.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6 Dec 2016, Part 1, Paragraph 1.6.12 and

REVISED DRAFT RFP, Section L, Factor 2 dated 6 Dec 2016.

WSMR PWS

Attachment #2 and REVISED

DRAFT RFP

Revised WSMR PWS

(Attachment #2) dated 6

Dec 2016, Part 1, Paragraph 1.6.12 and

REVISED DRAFT RFP

dated 6 Dec 2016, Section

L, Factor 2

Q55

Sample

Problem Contracting

Which CLIN should the milestone for the PMP deliverable be included since the site visit slides stated it would be a NSP

CLIN? Will subsequent task orders under this contract include a NSP CLIN for PMPs?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: The

Government is currently reviewing your question. If the Government decides to incorporate your suggestion/concern, those changes will be reflected in the Final RFP, if/when released.

Q56

Sample

Problem Contracting

We understand the RFP is currently in the Draft stage. When is the final RFP Expected to be released?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Government anticipates release of the FINAL RFP in December 2016.

Reference FBO.gov for all updates.

Q57

Sample

Problem Contracting

What is the New Mexico gross receipts tax rate that should be used in our proposal?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference FAR Clause 52.229-10.

FAR Clause 52.229-10 was added to REVISED

DRAFT RFP dated 6 Dec

2016, Section I.

Q58

Sample

Problem Contracting

Does the Waste Management Center/WSMR review and approve all waste disposal activities and documents?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q28.

Q59

Sample

Problem Contracting

Does the Hazaroudous Wastement Management

Center/WSMR have specific waste characterization and management requirements?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q28.

Q60

Sample

Problem Contracting

Does the Hazardous Waste Management Center/WSMR cover the cost of disposal of IDW?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q28.

Q61

Sample

Problem Contracting

If the Hazardous Waste Management Center/WSMR does not pay for IDW Disposal can the contractor choose their own waste transport/disposal?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q28.

Q62

Sample

Problem Contracting

During the site walk it was specified that a CAC Petition without controls would be required for WSMR-30, 32, 56, 60, 79, and CCWS-04 - please confirm.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q10.

joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text

Q63

Sample

Problem Contracting

Please provide the approved Main Post Background Study, 2014.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q18.

Q64

Sample

Problem Contracting

Please reconcile some of the NOD statements with permit requirements, for example a general comment on the Phase III

RFI for SWMU 22 and 30 stated that a Release Assessment report is required, however, these sites are not listed as requiring a Release Assessment Report in Table 8-2 in the

RCRA Permit.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: The

NOD was on a CAC Petition. The

Phase III RFI is approved.

Q65

Sample

Problem Contracting

Please provide the 2015 Groundwater Monitoring Report and the 2015 Annual Monitoring Report for Methane for WSMR-

81/82

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: These are not available.

Q66

WSMR 67

(SWMU 121,

122, 123)

The NMED letter “Approval with Modifications – Release

Assessment Report SWMUs 107, 121, 122, 123, and 163” (19

February 2014) refers to recommendations from the 1993

Final Closure Report for the Storage Tank Removal and

Remediation at Stallion Range Center, and asks whether Tank

#3 has been removed and soil excavations have occurred per the 1993 recommendations. The Release Assessment Report

(2013) states that the “third tank was removed at a later unknown date and is not present at the site.” Can the

Government confirm if the recommended excavation (100 ft x

100 ft x 5 ft depth) around Tank 3 has been conducted? USG Response 6 Dec 2016: No.

Q67

WSMR 30

(SWMU 80)

The NMED NOD letter (5 February 2015) references the

Close Out Report statement “confirmation samples were not collected from beneath the excavation during the site close-out”, and goes on to require collection of confirmation samples from the backfill material and native material below the backfilled area. As the Performance Objective of this site is CAC within 24 months, does the Government have information that will mitigate the requirement of obtaining an approved Work Plan, conduct sampling, and obtaining an approved Investigation Report prior to the CAC proposal? If not, would the Government consider extending the time frame for completion of this task? As documented in the administrative record, the NMED will not accept new (un-reviewed and un-approved) investigation/confirmation data as part of a PMR.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: The

Government does not have additional information.

Contractor is responsible for achieving Live Task Order objectives. For POP, reference

Response to Q9.

Q68

WSMR 32

(SWMU 22)

The NMED NOD letter (5 February 2015) stated that the

Close Out Report SWMU 22 Abandoned Spoil Piles near the

FFTA (1997) has not been reviewed and approved by NMED and therefore can’t be included in the PMR. Has the

Government re-submitted the Close Out Report SWMU22 and received NMED approval in the interim, or is this expected to occur prior to the updated CAC proposal (PMR) under the current PBA? If it has not been conducted yet, would the

Government consider extending the time frame for completion of this task, as the Close Out report review could take up to

180 days per NMAC 20.4.2, even without consideration of the potential for NOD comments.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: No.

There is an approved RFI.

Q69

WSMR 58

(SWMU 153)

WSMR has provided a second revision to the RFI Report

SWMU 153, which concludes that the site should be recommended for NFA (WSMR letter 11 February 2015).

Has the Government received an approval from NMED regarding this letter? If not, should it be assumed that the

Task will be awarded prior to the approval or will this task be awarded upon NMED approval of the RFI in order to ensure adequate POP for completion of the PMR?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Refer to

Response to Q42.

joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text

Q70

WSMR 73

(SWMU 17)

The NMED NOD letter (5 February 2015) states that WSMR must “…propose additional investigation at this SWMU”, since it “…does not appear that [WSMR] found the SWMU.”

Alternatively, NMED stated that WSMR could demonstrate that the “waste pipe never existed”. Does the Government have additional information demonstrating that no additional investigation will be required at SWMU 17, as per the 2015

NOD the site has not achieved RFI, and the 24 month CAC will not allow for Work Plan, investigation and reporting prior to the PMR process?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Refer to

Response to Q9.

Q71

WSMR 81

(SWMU 86)

The NMED Approval with Modifications – Revised RCRA

Facility Investigation Report (SWMUs 86 and 87) (16 October

2014) included a contingency for additional groundwater monitoring wells downgradient from MPL-06. This was based on an apparent anomalous nitrate concentration of 14.4 mg/L in well MPL-06 during the 10 December 2012 sampling event.

Since that was approximately 4 years ago, did subsequent results from well MPL06 result in nitrate levels exceeding the

MCL (10 mg/L) and/or have any additional monitoring wells been installed at the site? If additional monitoring wells are required (per NMED’s Approval with Modification letter) based on more recent sampling of MPL-06, will the

Government consider extending the timeframe for completion of the CAC petition to account for work planning, field work and obtaining and approved Well Installation report?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Subsequent sampling has been performed under the STP GWM program and the Government will provide the 2014 Report. No additional wells have been installed. The Government may consider an extension of time for completion, however, justification will be required at that time.

Government will provide via DVD.

To receive document(s) please send an email request to joanna.b.cox.civ@mail.mil by

Noon (CST) Monday, 12 December

2016, to include Recipients Name, Company Name, Complete

Physical Address and Phone number.

Q72

CCWS-04

(WSMR-66,

SWMU 162)

As this SWMU was a former fire-fighting area FFTA, there may be impacts or concerns about Per- and Polyfluorinated

Alkyl Substances (PFAS). How will the Army deal with these

(and other emerging chemicals) in the contract?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference Response to Q23.

Q73

CCWS-71

(SWMU 92A-B,

93-100)

A Closure Plan for these sites (Arcadis, 2013) was submitted final, yet the public comment period for the closure plan (May

2016) indicated a draft version of the same document. Have the field sampling activities described in the 2013 Closure

Plan been conducted, or is this just the same document under separate cover?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Same document under separate cover.

Q74

WSMR-70

(SWMU-119,

SWMU-120)

Have there been any annual reports submitted since the RFI was approved in May 2014, and if so will the Army be submitting a copy?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

No annual reports submitted since the RFI.

Q75 Technical

Please provide the Release Assessment Reports for SMWUs

137 and 153.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: There is no separate Release Assessment

Report. The RFIs met and replaced this requirement.

Q76 Technical

Is the RFI for SWMU 153/WSMR 58 approved? If so, please provide a copy of the NMED approval letter.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Reference previously provided

Government Furnished

Information.

Q77 Technical

Will the fee for SWMUs 92A/B through 100 levied for 10 separate SWMUs or will they be combined for fee purposes?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: If these

SWMUs are combined into one document, one fee is required for the document not a separate fee for each SWMU. The state is looking at these sites as the same and therefore is only assessing a single fee for all of them.

joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text

Q78 Technical

Please provide CAC petition for SWMUs 121-123 and please provide the NOD letter for this petition.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Government will provide via DVD.

To receive document(s) please send an email request to joanna.b.cox.civ@mail.mil by

Noon (CST) Monday, 12 December

2016, to include Recipients Name, Company Name, Complete

Physical Address and Phone number.

Q79 Technical

Can we send petroleum-contaminated soil (from SWMUS 121-

123) at the Stallion Range landfill? USG Response 6 Dec 2016: No.

Q80 Technical

Can we use any other on-site waste management areas for

IDW disposal? USG Response 6 Dec 2016: No.

Q81 Technical

Has the August 18, 2016 Closure Plan for the Liquid

Propellant Evaporation/Neutralization Pits been approved? If not, should we assume that this is the scope of work that will be implemented to achieve an NMED-approved Closure

Report?

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: Yes, the Closure Plan has been approved. Reference previously provided Government Furnished

Information.

Q82 Technical

Was a response to NMED’s approval with modifications letter from May 2014 for WSMR 70/SWMUs 119 & 120 submitted?

If so, please provide a copy of the response letter.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016:

Government will provide via DVD.

To receive document(s) please send an email request to joanna.b.cox.civ@mail.mil by

Noon (CST) Monday, 12 December

2016, to include Recipients Name, Company Name, Complete

Physical Address and Phone number.

Q83 Technical

Please clarify how the NMED's document review fees are applied. Specifically, is a fee applied for a response to a major

NOD to an existing report. For example, the NMED commented on a Phase III RFI Report in 2014 and a response will be prepared that includes submittal of a revised Phase III report. Is a new RFI fee applied to the revised Phase III report? In addition, in cases where a single WSMR site contains multple SWMUs, how are the fees assessed? For example, WSMR-67 (SWMU-121, SWMU-122, SWMU-

123) Stallion Asphalt Tanks. If all documents associated with this CLIN group these three SWMUs together as if they constitute a single site, will a single document fee be applied, or will the NMED treat them as three separate sites in their fee assessment.

USG Response 6 Dec 2016: No fee assessed for submittal of revised documents. Documents addressing more than one SWMU will have a basic review fee plus an additional fee for each additional unit.

Dependent on the type of report.

Refer to NMAC 20.4.2.208 Table 5.

joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text joanna.b.cox Typewritten Text