Attachment 8b Amendment 0004 W9124J22R0005 QA Matrix Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 255 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Environmental Remediation (ERMA24 IDIQ RFP)
- Solicitation number
- W9124J-22-R-0005
View the file
Other files
Show all 48
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP -ALL Comments
| W9124J22R0005 Solicitation Questions | ||||||
| # | Page | Comment/Rationale | Responses | Carson | Irwin | Base |
| 1 | RFP, Section L, 5. Proposal Preparation Instructions, Table 2: Proposal Organization and Structure, page 62 | Will USAEC consider increasing the page limit for Volume I as it includes two substantial narratives, Factor 1: Technical Approach to Sample Task Order and Factor 2: IDIQ Management Approach? The Sample Task Order includes developing a technical approach for more than 25 individual AOPIs at two separate locations, which could be more easily evaluated with supporting tables and figures in addition to text detailing the site background, assumptions, regulatory process, and required deliverables. | Yes. Addendum to 52.212-1, Section 5, Preparation Instructions, Table 2, Proposal Organization and Structure has been updated to reflect a 30-page limit for Volume I. Contractors should be able to provide the requested information within this alloted page limit. | X | ||
| 2 | RFP, Section L, 5., c. Proposal Page Limitation, page 62 | Can tables, figures, and exhibits be excluded from counting to the page limit for Volume 1? | No. See Question 1 and Refer to Addendum to 52.212-1, Section 5, Paragraph d for exclusions. | X | ||
| 3 | Attachments 2 and 3 | Please specify the anticipated start date to be used in the project schedule for the Sample Task Orders (Irwin and Carson). | As delineated in Pricing Schedules (Attachment 5a & 6a) the anticipated start date for Irwin and Carson is 01 Nov 2023. | X | ||
| 4 | Attachments 2 and 3 | Please specify any turn-around times, review times, response to comments review times, and back check times (in calendar days or business days) on the Draft, Draft Final, and Final versions of the deliverables for both the Army and the Regulators. | Refer to the PWS for each specific TO review times. |
| IAW Base PWS definition 2.8 DAY: means, unless otherwise specified, a calendar day. | X | ||||
| 5 | Attachments 5a, 5b, 6a, and 6b | Please provide Attachments 5 and 6 (Price Schedules for Irwin and Carson) in Excel to ensure correct formatting for submittal. | Attachments 5a, 6a, and 6b have been incorporated in Excel Format. | X | |
| 6 | RFP, Section L, 7. Volume I Content, Subfactor 2: Execution of Field Work, b., page 64 | Will the resumes for Factor 1 be evaluated based on the specific requirements for the Sample Task Order or for the IDIQ Contract? For instance, the strongest resume for the Regulatory Specialist for the Sample Task Order may not be a strong resume when evaluated for Regulatory Specialist for the IDIQ where projects could be located anywhere in the country. Please advise whether the resumes will be evaluated based on their applicability to the Sample Task Order or the IDIQ contract. | Subfactor 2 Execution of Field Work, Para. b reads as follows: b.The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed staffing plan as it relates to the offeror’s technical approach and understanding of the requirement. The proposed staff will be evaluated to determine whether it clearly depicted the appropriate number of personnel, labor hours in each labor category by CLIN. The staffing plan shall have also identified which labor categories will be filled by the prime contractor or subcontractor employees. The Government will evaluate offeror’s staffing plan to determine if the key personnel resumes met the experience and education identified in Section 1.12 of the IDIQ PWS. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s staffing plan to determine if the expertise, experience, certifications, licenses, occupational titles, disciplines, and labor categories for any non key personnel are suitable to achieve the sample task order requirements. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s staffing plan to ensure it included an organizational chart for the sample task order, demonstrating all positions/labor categories needed to successfully complete the proposed technical approach and clearly included all lines of authority/communication with the Installation, USAEC, MICC-FSH Contracting Officer and Regulators. | X | |
| 7 | RFP, Section L, 1. Proposal Submission Instructions and 2. Deadline for Questions, page 60 | Questions are due 17 May 2023 and the Proposals are due 31 May 2023. This does not provide much time for contractors to review the answers to questions, especially considering the time needed for USAEC to formulate and circulate responses. Will USAEC consider extending the proposal due date to allow for 2 weeks’ time between when USAEC provides the answers to questions and when the proposals are due? | Yes. Block 8 of the Standard Form 1449 has been updated to reflect a closing date of 15 Aug 2023. | X | |
| 8 | RFP, Section L, 8. Volume II: Factor 3 – Past Performance, b., (7), page 66 | If a CPAR has been completed, can the contractor elect to also include a PPQ in addition to the CPAR? | Yes, see revised lanagure in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. 8. Volume II: Factor- Past Performance (7) | X | |
| 9 | RFP, SF 1449, 10. Size Standard, page 1 | The small business size standard for NAICS 562910 on the SF 1449 in the RFP is listed as 750 employees; however, the correct small business size standard for NAICS 562910 is 1,000 employees. Will USAEC please make this correction? | Yes. The Size Standard has been revised to reflect 1000 based on the SBA Table of Small Business Size Standards effective 17 March 2023. See Deanna’s response. | X | |
| 10 | |||||
| 11 | |||||
| 12 | RFP Section L, pg 67, paragraph c | A project is defined as work at one site or multiple sites on a single installation. We request that AEC delete the requirement that the project reflect work at a single installation. Over the last 13 years, AEC, Air Force, USACE, and Navy have increasingly awarded contracts/task orders at multiple installations. In fact, the sample project at Fort Irwin is at multiple “installations” (off-base and on-base investigation, NTC and Fort Irwin). In our management approach to the ID/IQ, we are required to discuss the challenges of managing work at multiple installations. Finally, under our relevant multi-installation projects, the total project costs are >$10M, however, it is difficult to identify one installation where the costs were >$5M (SB suite) or >$10M (UB suite). | See revised language in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. 8. Volume II: Factor- Past Performance (12)c. A project defined i and ii. "at one site or multiple sites at instalations or facilites. |
| No change was made to the SB Suite threshold. | X | |||||||
| 13 | RFP Section L, pg 65, paragraph (2) | We request that the relevant project value threshold for the SB suite be reduced to $2.5M. | See Question 12 above | X | ||||
| 14 | RFP Section L, pg 64, paragraph (4) | Please confirm the list of attachments, exhibits, tables, and figures are not included in the page count. | As delineated in Addendum to 52.212-1, Section 5, Paragraph d, Page Count Excludes: Cover pages for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, cross reference indices, and section dividers if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. They will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted. Resumes and project schedule required under Factor 1/Subfactor 2 will not count towards the page limitation. Each resume shall not exceed two pages. | X | ||||
| 15 | RFP Section L, pg 66, paragraph (11) | Please confirm if the offeror is a JV, the Small Business Participation Past Performance requirement only applies to the JV. | See para 8.b(12) for submitting subcontractor past performance information. | X | ||||
| 16 | Attachment 1, PWS Base ID/IQ ERMA, 1.12.4 Senior Scientist/Engineer/Specialist | The clause states: "The contractor shall designate one individual as the Senior Scientist/Engineer that will be assigned for every TO awarded." Please confirm that offerors are not required to designate the same Senior Scientist/Engineer to every TO and the language should read "The Contractor shall designate one individual as the Senior Scientist/Engineer for every task order awarded" (similar to the requirement for the Project Manager). Each TO will have different technical requirements. It is unlikely that one person has the expertise required for all TOs and, therefore, may be ineffective as a technical expert/leader. This may require the contractor to put more than one senior technical leader on a project causing inefficiencies and increased costs. | BASE PWS revised 1.12.4 to state. The Contractor shall designate an individual as the Senior Scientist/Engineer for every TO awarded. | X | ||||
| 17 | Attachment 3, UB Suite PWS, Part 5. Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS, Sections 1.23, 1.24, and 5.7.1.4. | Please provide required document review periods for Government and stakeholder reviews (number of calendar days to review each document version). | PWS 5.1.3.1 revised to include Government will typically respond between 14-30 calendar days. Regulatory times vary and are not within the control of the US Army. | X | ||||
| 18 | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, Section 8.b.(3). | We request that the requirement to provide UEI or CAGE Codes be waived for commercial past performance projects. As standard practice, these codes are not used in the commercial sector. | This information is required for all Past performance submissions of the Prime or subcontractors being proposed. | X | ||||
| 19 | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, Section 8.Volume II: Factor 3 Past Performance; a.(1). Page 65 of 81. | Will the Government allow a project definition to include a single task order on an IDIQ contract that covers multiple installations? | See response to Question #12. | X | ||||
| 20 | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, Section 8.Volume II: Factor 3 Past Performance; a.(1). Page 65 of 81. | Will the Government allow a project definition to include an IDIQ contract if the contract covers only one single installation? | See response to Question #12. | X | ||||
| 21 | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, Section 8.Volume II: Factor 3 Past Performance; a.(1). Page 65 of 81 | Will the Government allow a project definition to include multiple task orders on an IDIQ contract if all task orders are for a single installation? | See response to Question #12. | X | ||||
| 22 | PWS (Fort Carson). Section 1.4 CLIN 007 | In addition to OPS closure documentation, what work does the government expect the contractor to complete a PCMS Fuel Point under CLIN 0007? Will the contractor be expected to perform remediation of any petroleum-contaminated soil and groundwater at PCMS Fuel Point under CLIN 0007? | See 5.12.1 | Optional CLIN 0007 0005 – Colorado Division of Oil and Public Safety (OPS), Risk-Based Closure @ CC-106, PCMS Fuel Point: Upon completion of tank removal and immediate vicinity contaminant clean-up by Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), the Contractor shall complete all necessary additional requirements, and receive a ‘No Further Action’ determination from OPS in order to meet the requirements of DERP site closeout parameters. See the GFI and the following website: https://ops.colorado.gov/release-response/release-closure-criteria. | X | |||
| 23 | Attach_3_PWS UB Suite_Carson STO_V4 | Please provide additional guidance on the following questions related to laboratory data validation and submission requirements: | What type of data validation is required (i.e. Stage of validation) for analytical laboratory data and is 100% of the analytical laboratory data required to be validated (with exception of waste characterization)? | For the analytical laboratory data validation, what specific data validation guidance should be followed (i.e. General Data Validation Guidelines, EDQW, November 2019 and the applicable method modules)? | What type of Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) format is required to be provided by the laboratory? | Information is provided in newly attached FLPM provided in updated GFI (Batch 2) | X | |
| 24 | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, page 13 of 81, Section 3.b. | This section states that wage determination (WD) will be identified within the RTOP for TOs that are subject to Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS). Please clarify if there is SCLS associated with the sample TO. If this is the case, please provide it | Applicable Wage Determinations for Fort Irwin and Ft. Carson have been incorporated. | X | ||||
| 25 | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, page 62 of 81, Table 2. | Volume I - Technical Capability. 25 pages will not be adequate to address both Factor 1 and Factor 2. We request that the page count be increased from 25 to 50. | See response to Question #1 | X | ||||
| 26 | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, page 62 of 81, Section 5.c. | Please consider excluding exhibits from the page count. | See response to Question #2 | X | ||||
| 27 | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, page 66 of 81, Section 8.b.(9) | There is an incomplete sentence at the end of the paragraph. Please clarify meaning. ("Client Authorization Letters for each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the government of requested information on the offerors performance | See revised Section 8.b.(9). | X | ||||
| 28 | RFP_W9124J-22-R-0005_ERMA23+IDIA_4.18.2023.pdf/page 8/ Section F – Deliveries or Performance and Attach+2_PWS+SB+Suite_Irwin+STO_v5.pdf/page 21/5.1.1 Project Management services, f. Project Schedule | If the anticipated award date is in FY23 (30 Aug 2023), would it be acceptable to the government to allow contract year 1 to include the remaining days in FY23 and all days in FY24 in order to align to the government fiscal year (GFY)? Alternatively, would the government consider changing the possible award date to 30 Sept 2023 so that contract years and GFY could be aligned? | No, contract years do not follow FY schedule. | X | ||||
| 29 | RFP_W9124J-22-R0005_ERMA23+IDIA_4.18.2023.pdf/ page 67/8. Volume II: Factor 3 – Past Performance, c. A project is defined as: | Will the government allow for an additional project definition – to allow work performed at a single installation or facility under multiple task orders? For example, Company X has been working at DoD Installation performing RI/FS, PP, and ROD scopes of work from 2013 – 2024. They have received three task orders to allow for completing subsequent tasks; task order one valued at $1.2M, task order two valued at $1.1M, task order three valued at $2.9M. The total value of the combined task orders is greater than $5M.Will the government accept a project as described in the example above to be considered relevant as a project under Factor 3-Past Performance? This project description would demonstrate the same scope as is identified in both the sample task order and the overall IDIQ PWS. | See Response to question #12. | X | ||||
| 30 | FTIR at BDA_Final PA-SI Report_12092022.pdf/page /Section 5.2 | The groundwater flow direction may be influenced when production well I-7 is actively pumping. Production well I-9 is also in the vicinity of several AOPIs. Please provide information on the schedules and operational rates of these wells. | These wells are currently unused, but could be used in the future. | X | ||||
| 31 | Pg 19 | The RFP states that applicable wage determinations shall be determined at the Task Order level. Please provide the applicable Service Contract Labor Standards wage determination for the location of the two locations related to Fort Carson. | Applicable Wage Determinations for Fort Irwin and Ft. Carson have been incorporated. | X | ||||
| 32 | Page 64, Section L.6.b.(4) | L.6.b.(4) has the list of attachments, exhibits, tables, and figures coming at the end of the volume. Would it be compliant to put this at the front of the volume with the table of contents? | Offerors shall follow the Proposal Response Content format as delineated in the Addendum to 2.212-1, Section 6, Paragraph b. | X | ||||
| 33 | Page 62, Section L.5.b Table 2 Proposal Organization and Structure | L.5.b Table 2 Proposal Organization and Structure, Volume IV Price Format column shows only “Price Schedule in MS Excel (unprotected/unlocked copy).” Please clarify if Volume IV is only submitted in Excel or if it should also be provided in PDF. | Excel Only | X | ||||
| 34 | RFP_W9124J-22-R-0005_ERMA23+IDIQ_4.18.2023.pdf Block 8 | Given the large amount of GFI and that it was not delivered with the RFP, the number of sites, and the national holiday (Memorial Day), we respectfully request a minimum two-week extension to provide adequate opportunity to prepare a submittal responsive to the RFP. | GFI was provided upon request IAW the RFP. See response to Question #7 | X | ||||
| 35 | PWS, Technical Exhibit 2 (GFI list), page 35, FTC-058, SWMU 16 and FTC-33, SWMU 53 | Please confirm that the following docs were provided with the GFI: the 2017 Annual Report, the 2018 Annual Report, the 2019 Annual Report, the 2020 Annual Report, the 2021 Annual Report. | These sites do not have annual reports, only quartely reports which are included in the GFI. | X | ||||
| 36 | PWS, Technical Exhibit 2 (GFI list), page 35, FTC-058, SWMU 16 and FTC-33, SWMU 53 | Please confirm that the CMI Work Plan for SWMU 16 and SWMU 53 as listed in the PWS, Page 35 was provided with the GFI. | Yes - CMI WP Sent with S16_53 Supplemental on May 3, 2023 | X | ||||
| 37 | PWS, Technical Exhibit 2 (GFI list), page 35, FTC-058, SWMU 16 and FTC-33, SWMU 53 | Please confirm that the GWTS Construction Completion Report for SWMU 16 and SWMU 53 as listed in the PWS, Page 35 was provided with the GFI. | Yes - CMI WP Sent with S16_53 Supplemental on May 3, 2023 | X | ||||
| 38 | PWS Table 1, PWS page 8, and PWS Section 5.18, FTC-058, SWMU 16 and FTC-33, SWMU 53 | The performance objective for CLIN 0021 includes “ensure the extent of the 1,4-dioxane & TCE plumes are fully delineated.” Are delineation criteria defined in the RCRA Permit and CMI work plan affected in the event EPA criteria change or have changed? | See GFI, DERP Manual, and other source for definition of delineation during investigation. | X | ||||
| 39 | PWS, Technical Exhibit 2 (GFI list), page 36, SWMU 168, SWMU 169 | Please confirm that the RFI Report Addendum for SWMU 168 and SWMU 169 as listed in the PWS, Page 36 was provided with the GFI. Were there any new recommendations based on the findings of the 2022 RFIs? | No, the RFI Reports for these sites are not finalized yet. The Offerror shall add appropriate assumptions as needed in their proposal. | X | ||||
| 40 | PWS, Technical Exhibit 2 (GFI list), pages 35-36, SWMU 89, SWMU 164, SWMU 167, SWMU 168, SWMU 169 | Can the most recent progress reports (even if drafts) for these SWMUs be provided? The GFI does not include the 4Q 2022 RPT for SWMU 89 or 2022 Annual RPTs for SWMUs 164, 167, 168, and 169. These reports were due to be completed 90 days after the end of December 2022 (March 2023). | No - the last quarter hasn't been finalized. The Offerors have 5 years worth of GFI to make appropriate assumptions. | X | ||||
| 41 | Draft RFP, Attachment 3, UB Suite Carson STO | The PWS Table 1 states that Option CLINs 0011 and 0012 may be awarded based on the outcome of supplemental SI sampling, and if exercised, “shall be completed along with CLIN 0010.” Is there an existing SI QAPP or work plan defining the requirements for supplemental SI sampling? | Yes - The SI UFP-QAPP was provided in the updated GFI | X | ||||
| 42 | Can the offeror assume that the Supplemental SI sampling defined in CLIN 0010 will be performed during the preparation of the Remedial Investigation QAPP? (i.e., Supplemental SI sampling will be performed prior to RI QAPP approval.) | The Offeror is given full latitude on how they want to approach the requirement in order to execute the CLIN effectively. | X | |||||
| 43 | If the supplemental SI sampling is to be included in the RI QAPP, the decision point as to whether these sites can be eliminated from further evaluation will not occur until after the RI QAPP is approved and the RI for the known AOPIs is underway. Given this schedule dependency, execution of Option CLINs 0011 and 0012 may not be possible within the period of performance specified for CLIN 0010. | The government disagrees with statement. See PWS, 5.14.7 | X | |||||
| 44 | Draft RFP, Attachment 3, UB Suite Carson STO, CLIN 0010, 0011, and 0012, PWS Section 5.14.5 | PWS Section 5.14.5 states that “DoD is still working on detailed guidance on PFAS-containing IDW disposal.” Please verify that the referenced DoD guidance will be provided with the RFP, or that the government will consider equitable adjustments if IDW disposal requirements change relative to the basis of proposal | See PWS, 5.14.11. It is clear. The Contractor shall be responsible for PFAS IDW disposal. | X | ||||
| 45 | General | Will AEC consider expanding the page count for Volume I Technical Capability which includes the Technical Approach (Factor 1) for 22 CLINS and 30 sites at Fort Carson as well as the IDIQ Management (Factor 2)? | See response to Question #1 | X | ||||
| 46 | General | Will AEC consider excluding tables, figures, and graphics from the page count? | See response to Question #2 | X | ||||
| 47 | General | Will AEC consider excluding the Organizational Charts from the page count? | See rsponse to Question #1 and 2 | X | ||||
| 48 | Section L, 8. Volume II: Factor 3 - Past Performance, (7) | Will AEC accept an interim CPAR for a submitted project? | Yes, as long as the CPARS report is in the website. | X | ||||
| 49 | AET, the company that invented the E-redox technology that is to be used for the Pilot Study under CLIN 0004 at Fort Carson, has indicated they have an exclusive teaming agreement with a specific consultant and they will not provide information to other offerers. Please confirm that the propriety technology is required. This teaming agreement represents an unfair competitive advantage to one offerer. Please advise. | CLIN 0004 and 0005 requirements have been removed from this contract. See Amended PWS and price schedules. | X | |||||
| 50 | RFP_W9124J-22-R-0005_ERMA23_IDIQ_4.18.2023/P.13/Para 3. RFP_W9124J-22-R-0005_ERMA23_IDIQ_4.18.2023/P.70/Para b.(2) | The contractor understands that the sample task order will be awarded based on the lowest price (RFP, P. 70, Para b.(2)). However, please confirm whether future task orders issued under the ERMA contract will be awarded on a best value basis as noted in RFP, P. 13, Para 3. | IAW RFP Section H TO Ordering Procedures 2.6. "Additionally, the RTOP will provide the source selection evaluation method and all evaluation factors, establish a date for questions & answers, site visit (if applicable) and the RTOP’s closing date; and any other pertinent information required to provide a fair opportunity for the competition of the TO requirement. | X | ||||
| 51 | RFP_W9124J-22-R-0005_ERMA23_IDIQ_4.18.2023/P.67/Para (12)c. | Contractor respectfully requests consideration to revise the project definition to allow for single task order or “C-Type” contracts that allow one site or multiple sites at multiple installations or facilities vs a single installation. This will allow better flexibility so that Contractors can demonstrate the greatest depth and diversity under a single project for evaluation purposes | See response to Question #12. | X | ||||
| 52 | Attach 2_PWS SB Suite_Irwin STO_v5/P.16/Table 5.1 and P.20/Section 5.1.1d | Can the Government please clarify if a UFP-QAPP is included in Task 5.1 or is required in either or both Tasks 5.2 and 5.3 (i.e., is only one UFP-QAPP required for the entire TO)? | Only One UFP-QAPP is required in Task 5.1 which includes projects in 5.2 and 5.3. | X | ||||
| 53 | Attach 2_PWS SB Suite_Irwin STO_v5/P.21/Section 5.1.1g | Can the Government please confirm that SSWPs are separate submittals with different due dates and comment periods than the UFP-QAPP described in Section 5.1.1d? | PWS 5.1.1.g. SSWPs are separate submittals. | X | ||||
| 54 | Can the Government please clarify that PFBS, PFOS, and PFOA are the only PFAS to be reported and compared to the screening levels as provided in the OSD policy/EPA RSLs? | Contractor shall need to determine based on current Army and regulatory requirements. | X | |||||
| 55 | Attach 2_PWS SB Suite_Irwin STO_v5/P.21/Section 5.1.1j | Can the Government please clarify what analytical methods are required for analysis of PFAS in soil, sediment, groundwater, and/or surface water? | Contractor shall determine based on current Army and regulatory requirements. | X | ||||
| 56 | Attach 2_PWS SB Suite_Irwin STO_v5/P.16/Table 5.1 | Can the Government please confirm that a new, updated, and/or amended UFP-QAPP is not required for Task 5.7? If not, can the Government please provide the “Army and regulator approved plans” for this task? | 5.7 shall be included in the contract UFP-QAPP. There are no UFP-QAPPs for this project covering current requirements for the site. | X | ||||
| 57 | Attach 2_PWS SB Suite_Irwin STO_v5/P.22/Section 5.1.1k | Can the Government please provide the number of hard copies required for each submittal (i.e., required for the administrative record)? | See revised PWS 5.1.1.h. | X | ||||
| 58 | Attach 2_PWS SB Suite_Irwin STO_v5/P.25/Section 5.1.3 | Can the Government please confirm that there are no Optional CLINs associated with Task 5.3 at FTIR-01 and Task 5.7 (FTIR-02/04)? | See 5.1.3 of the PWS. Several Optional CLINs may be associated with projects in Task 5.3 and 5.7. | X | ||||
| 59 | Attach 2_PWS SB Suite_Irwin STO_v5/P.22/Section 5.1.3 | Can the Government confirm that Optional Gas Well repair in PWS Section 5.1.3.8 should be performed in accordance with PWS Section 5.1.2.3 and not 5.1.2.5? | The PWS 5.1.3.8 has been updated to show the gas well repair shall be in accordance with 5.1.2.4. | X | ||||
| 60 | Attach 2_PWS SB Suite_Irwin STO_v5/P.22/Section 5.1.3 | Can the Government please confirm that the Optional Settlement Survey is associated with PWS Section 5.1.2.5? | Yes. See 5.1.3.9 of the PWS for clarity. | X | ||||
| 61 | Attach 2_PWS SB Suite_Irwin STO_v5/P.22/Section 5.1.3 | Given the limited amount of previous data for both soil and groundwater at all the sites, can the Government please clarify the intent of the Optional CLINS? i.e., are the Optional CLINS what will be used to implement the initial fieldwork aspects of SSIs/RIs or are they to be used solely for step outs above and beyond what contractors assume in Tasks 5.2, 5.3, and 5.7? If the latter, can the Government please provide a minimum number of borings, monitoring wells, number/frequency of samples, media required, etc.? | All SSIs/RIs and other projects shall be in accordance with the project descriptions in the PWS. Optional CLINs shall support the projects as needed. As a performance based acquisition, it is incumbent upon the proposer to utilize Government Furnished Information (GFI), publicly available data (i.e. USGS, state well data), professional judgement/expertise, etc. to determine the necessary requirements to meet the performance objectives of this Task Order (TO) | X | ||||
| 62 | Attach 2_PWS SB Suite_Irwin STO_v5/P.42/Technical Exhibit 1/ Site Description for RI for FTIR-01/CCFTIR-01 Active/Inactive Landfill at NTC and Fort Irwin Project/ Active/Inactive Landfill (FTIR-01/CCFTIR-01). | Can the Government please confirm that UXO construction support is required at FTIR-01/CCFTIR-01 during intrusive activities (e.g., drilling)? | UXO construction support may be required for work outside FTIR-01/CCFTIR-01 boundary, if that work is conducted within a designated MMRP site boundary. PWS section 5.1.2.4 has been updated. | X | ||||
| 63 | Can the Government please provide drilling logs and monitoring well construction diagrams for existing monitoring wells? | Boring logs are not readily available due to the age of many of the wells. As a performance based acquisition, it is incumbent upon the proposer to utilize Government Furnished Information (GFI), publicly available data (i.e. USGS, state well data), professional judgement/expertise, etc. to determine the necessary requirements to meet the performance objectives of this Task Order (TO). | X | |||||
| 64 | Can the Government please clarify if there is a source of PFAS-free water on-installation that contractors can use for decontamination activities, etc.? | PFAS-free water sources on Fort Irwin are anticipated, but shall be confirmed by Fort Irwin DPW environmental staff prior to use. | X | |||||
| 65 | Can the Government please clarify if contractors can place drill cuttings on the surface at the point of generation? | Contractor shall have to determine that through expertise and consulting with regulations. | X | |||||
| 66 | Attach 2_PWS SB Suite_Irwin STO_v5/P.30 | Please clarify whether the reference to the "Investigating Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances DoD Memo (2021)" referenced on Page 30 should be updated to the July 2022 memo? If yes, would PFNA, PfHxS and HFPO-DA also be required? | Contractor shall need to determine based on current Army and regulatory requirements. | X | ||||
| 67 | RFP |
Section I, Clauses Incorporated by Full Text 52.228-16
| pg.25. | Will a payment/performance bond will be required at the task order level, specifically for consideration in the sample task pricing | The requirement for Non-construction Payment/performance bond will be identified at the task order level. | X | ||||
| 68 | Attach 3_PWS UR Suite Carson STO V4 | Is there an SCA Wage Determination applicable to the Sample Task? | Applicable Wage Determinations for Fort Irwin and Ft. Carson are provieded as attachments. | X | |||
| 69 | Attachment 3, Page 35 of 36, Technical Exhibit 2, FTC-058, SWMU 16 &FTC-033, SWMU 53 | The “CMI Work Plan” and “GWTS Construction Completion RPT” are not included in the DOD SAFE archives provided. Can the Government please provide in a subsequent GFI distribution? | Yes - CMI WP and Construction Completion RPT sent with S16_53 Supplemental on May 3, 2023 | X | |||
| 70 | Attachment 3, Page 36 of 36, Technical Exhibit 2, FTC-093, SWMU 168 | The “RFI Report Addendum” is not included in the DOD SAFE archives provided. Can the Government please provide in a subsequent GFI distribution? | See response to Question #39 | X | |||
| 71 | Attachment 3, Page 36 of 36, Technical Exhibit 2, CC-SW169, SWMU 169 | The “RFI Report Addendum” is not included in the DOD SAFE archives provided. Can the Government please provide in a subsequent GFI distribution? | See response to Question #39 | X | |||
| 72 | Attachment 3, Page 2 of 36, Section 1.1.6; Page 30 of 36, Section 5.24; | As noted in 1.1.6, “Fort Carson also has a Field and Laboratory Procedures Manual (FLPM) that has been approved by CDPHE and must be complied with during all environmental restoration field activities.” The FLPM is also referenced several times in the RCRA Permit and other documents for multiple sites across the post (i.e., FTC-023 SWMU 89, FTC-023 SWMU 109, FTC-020 SWMU 13, Landfills 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, etc.). However, the only FLPM included in the Government Furnished Information (GFI) was Enclosure G, Final Field And Laboratory Procedures Manual, Fort Carson Army Installation, Fort Carson, Colorado (Kemron Environmental Services, Inc., 2018). This document only addresses the “SOP 19: Purge Water Treatment and GAC Maintenance” and does not address laboratory quality reporting requirements (i.e., Level II, Level IV, etc.), field sampling quality requirements (i.e., sample duplicates, rinse blanks, etc.), data validation and data usability requirements, etc. for compliance with the RCRA Permit or other current regulatory obligations. Can the Government please provide a complete version of the referenced FLPM for Fort Carson that has been approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)? | Information is provided in newly attached FLPM provided in updated GFI (Batch 2) | X | |||
| 73 | GFI for CLIN 15, SWMU 171 Building 221 | This document discusses a soil sample collected at Building 221 during building demolition. The footprint for Building 221 is approx. 15,100 square feet. Would it be possible to determine the location of the soil sample? | See GFI for Bldg 221 | X | |||
| 74 | B221_Contaminated-Soil-Notification_06Nov20RFP/Page 60/2. Deadline for Questions | Will the Government please consider allowing a 5-day Q&A period extension after the Government has answered all questions submitted through the May 17th due date? This will allow offerors to clarify Government responses and any material changes to the procurement resulting from the initial Q&A period. Additionally, once the Q&A period is finalized, we request a 10-business day extension from the release of answers to questions such that the information can be adequately incorporated into our proposal response. | A Q&A Extension has been granted. See Addendum update to 52.212-1, Paragraph 2 Deadline for Questions for revised timeline for questions. See Government Response to Q7 regarding revised proposal due date. | X | |||
| 75 | RFP/Pag 62/Table 2: Proposal Organization and Structure | Relating to the unrestricted response for Factors 1 and 2, involving Fort Carson, there is not sufficient page limits to provide a compliant proposal that meets all the requirements described in the Volume I Content section from Pages 64 through 65 and Volume I – Technical Capability Evaluation Criteria Requirements described from Pages 76 through 77. In order to meet the requirements set forth in the RFP, we request a page limit extension from 25 pages to 40 pages for Factor 1 and Factor 2. | See response to Question #1 | X | X | ||
| 76 | Page 65 of 81, Section L, Paragraph 8(1) | Section L, Paragraph 8(1) states that offerors are to submit projects that are complete within the past seven (7) years from the issue date of this RFP or are current efforts that have been performed for at least one year and are 80% complete from the date of issuance of this RFP. We have multiple relevant PFAS/PFOS projects that, due to the dynamic nature of the regulatory environment around this emerging contaminant, have been and continue to be modified by the government. These highly relevant task orders and contracts have gone from being nearly complete to less than 80% complete because of the modifications caused by regulatory and/or policy changes requiring additional work. The projects do still include completed scope elements such as multiple years of regulatory coordination, field activities, and report writing but are currently not at 80% due to work added to address changes outside of the control of both us and our clients. We also have relevant PFAS projects awarded years ago that will not meet the 1 year and 80% complete criteria because they are long-term (5-year) investigations. Please consider changing this requirement to either 1) current efforts that have been performed for at least one year or are 80% complete, or 2) current efforts that have been performed for at least one year and are 50% complete. | Noted. | X | |||
| 77 | RFP/page 70/10b.(1) Tab 2: Price Breakout | “Offerors shall break out their pricing by CLIN and provide all personnel (key and non-key personnel) labor hours and rates by CLIN where the Government can clearly identify the use of the offeror’s maximum cap labor rates for the key personnel.” |
| Is a Basis of Estimate, including ODC breakdown by equipment, materials, subcontracts and travel, to be included within the pricing volume? | Yes, all cost assoiciated to the CLIN pricing shall be provided | X | |||
| 78 | RFP/page 60/4.Fort Carson and Fort Irwin Site Information - GFI | Is there any correspondence between state regulators and Army regarding the PFAS SI report? If so, can you please provide the correspondence? | All data available at the time of the this soliciation has been provided. | X | |
| 79 | RFP/page 62-63/5c. Proposal Page Limitation | 5c. “Page limit includes all appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc. unless specifically excluded in the proposal instructions.” |
| We respectfully request that USAEC exclude from the page limit the staffing plan matrix and organizational chart from Subfactor 2 and the management approach organizational chart from Factor 2. | See Response to question #1 and #2 | X | |||
| 80 | RFP page 65 of 81, paragraph L.8.b(3) | Past Performance information is to include Prime (or Subcontractor's, teaming partner and/or joint venture partner) Cage and Unique Entity Identification (ID) numbers. Please confirm if this should be the proposing entity’s CAGE/UEID numbers (e.g., Offeror CAGE/UEID entered on the SF 1449 in Volume V) or the CAGE/UEID on the CPARS for the relevant project. With SAM.gov challenges in the past year, we have consolidated most of our contracts under our headquarter office CAGE/UEID rather than branch offices and have not renewed SAM registrations for some of our offices. Therefore, the CAGE/UEIDs associated with some of our completed projects are no longer current in SAM or CPARS. | CAGE/UEID are required on the CPARS for the relevant project in order for the Government to validate them in CPARS. | X | |
| 81 | Attachment 2, page 44, Technical Exhibit 1 – Additional Documents to be Provided | For Fort Irwin, please provide the following documents: Preliminary Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan, For Irwin Sanitary Landfill (Montgomery Watson, January 1999) Annual 2021 Groundwater and Soil Gas Monitoring Report, Active and Abandoned Landfill Areas and Landfill Inspection Reports for FTIR 02-04, May 2021 (we also request the 2022 annual report if available before the solicitation due date) Final Sampling and Analysis Plan (Field Sampling Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan), Groundwater and Soil Gas Monitoring and Reporting of Active and Abandoned Landfills (Tetra Tech, Inc. June 2017) Please confirm the Revised Draft Supplemental RI-FS Report for Groundwater at IRP Site FTIR-01 (Tetra Tech, March 6 2020) was never finalized, and this is the most recent draft document. | 1. 1999 Preliminary Closure and Post closure Maintenance Plan - shall be provided in batch 2 of GFI |
2. 2021 annual report shall be provided in batch 2 of GFI.
4. 2017 SAP shall be provided.
| The March 6, 2020, Draft RI/FS was not finalized, and this is the most recent document. | X | ||||||
| 82 | Attachment 2, Technical Exhibit 1 (Site Descriptions) | Fort Irwin: The PWS states “…the Army believes this site [FTIR-01] should shift to a CERCLA-only approach for closure…Moving forward the sole regulatory driver at this site is CERCLA”. Since the sole regulatory driver is CERCLA, will Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) become the primary ARARs for groundwater? | Contractor shall need to determine based on current Army and regulatory requirements. | X | |||
| 83 | Attachment 2, Page 42, Technical Exhibit 1 – Site Descriptions | Fort Irwin: Exhibit 1 indicates UXO is a concern at CCFTIR-01, and Section 7.3.2.5 of the Supplemental RI/FS indicates “MEC items have been observed on the surface of the landfill.” What specific type of MEC/UXO has been previously observed at the landfill? What specific type of MEC/UXO is potentially buried at depth to cause this concern? | No records for UXO at the landfill have been identified. However the FTIR-01/CCFTIR-01 is surrounded by MMRP site. See response Question #62. | X | |||
| 84 | Attachments 5A and 5B, | ||||||
| Attachment 2, Page 20, paragraph 5.1.1.d | Fort Irwin: The POP for CLIN 001 is only 60 days, which does not allow any time for government or regulatory review, and because this CLIN is also supposed to include annual updates, we believe it should extend through the duration of the task order. Additionally, the review times in Attachment 2 (PWS) Section 5.1.1d and in Appendix B Deliverables Schedule do not match CLIN 001 in Attachment 5A/5B. Please confirm the number of UFP-QAPP iterations (draft, draft-final, final?) and the review times and turnaround times we should assume for each. | See reviesed CLIN 0001 POP and PWS | X | ||||
| 85 | Attachment 2, Page 22, paragraph 5.1.1.h, and page 33, Appendix B (Deliverables Schedule) | Fort Irwin: Please confirm that all deliverables are to be submitted via email only, and that there is no requirement to send hard copies or CDs of any versions to any stakeholders, libraries, or administrative records. | 1 hardcopy shall be required for finalized reports only. No CDs. | X | |||
| 86 | Attachment 2, Page 16, Table 5.1 Task Order Requirements | Fort Irwin: Table 5.1 states “Army and Regulatory review periods consistent with the interagency agreement.” Please provide a copy of this agreement. | Fort Irwin does not have an interagency agreement (FFA). Approximate reguatory review times are 90-120 days. | X | |||
| 87 | Solicitation/GFI | Please confirm that none of the information provided by the Government is CUI. If CUI has been included, please identify and mark the appropriate documents so we can apply appropriate controls to those documents. | No documents that have been submitted is classified as Controlled Unclassified Information(CUI). | X | |||
| 88 | RFP page 66 of 81, paragraph L.8.b(11) | Please confirm that Small Business Participation Past Performance should be reported only for the eight projects presented in Factor 3. In other words, contracts that are not relevant to the subject solicitation should not be included. | Yes, see revised lanagure in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. 8. Volume II: Factor- Past Performance b(11) | X | |||
| 89 | RFP page 67 of 81, paragraph L.8.c.i and ii | The project definitions in paragraphs i and ii limit experience to projects at a single installation or facility. We have relevant DoD projects that were performed at multiple installations under a single task order, including a task order under a previous ERMA contract. These projects demonstrate capabilities and experience that would benefit the government on the ERMA23 contract. We request that the government delete “sites at a single installation or facility” in paragraph i and “within a single installation or facility” in paragraph ii. | See Response to Question #12. | X | |||
| 90 | RFP page 62 of 81, Table 2: Proposal Organization and Structure; and page 70 of 81, paragraph L.10 | Table 2 and the instructions for the price volume require that pricing information be provided in MS Excel. Attachments 5a and 5b for SB Suite & Attachments 6a and 6b for UB Suite were provided in MS Word. Please provide these attachments in MS Excel. | See Response to Question #5 | X | |||
| 91 | RFP page 63 of 81, paragraph L.6.b | Section L, paragraph 6.b states that Volume I shall be segregated and partitioned into separate sections. Please confirm that the sections listed shall have separate section headings, but the sections do not need to start on separate pages. In other words, Subfactor 2 and Exceptions/Other Assumptions do not need to start on a new page, for example. This is especially critical considering the page limitation for this volume. | As delineated in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Paragraph 6 b, Format, Volume I shall include a table of contents and be segregated and partitioned onto separate sections as described. Offerors shall refer to Paragraph 5 d, Page Count Exclusions. | X | |||
| 92 | RFP page 65 of 81, paragraph L.8.a and L.8.a(2 | Section L, paragraphs 8.a and 8.a(2) uses the term “all functions” in reference to the Basic IDIQ PWS. So that offerors can focus our project descriptions on the most critical requirements rather than trying to address all 43 pages of the PWS, is there a specific section or Part that succinctly summarizes the most critical functions? Part 5 Specific Tasks uses the term “functions” with regard to the contractor, so the TO requirements in Table 5.1 seem most relevant, but clarity on this issue would be helpful to offerors and likely evaluators as well. | Contractor must use prudent judgement to determine the critical functions. | X | |||
| 93 | RFP page 64 of 81, paragraph L.7 | The requirements for Factor 1/Subfactor 1 state “The offeror shall address each subtask in the sample task order.” Please confirm that the technical approach to complete each subtask should be provided in Subfactor 1, whereas in Subfactor 2, offerors should only address the fieldwork to be executed, and that the approach to fieldwork does not need to be provided for each individual subtask. | Addendum to 52.212.1 Volume I, Factor 1/Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2 for Volume content requirements. | X | |||
| 94 | Attachment 2, page 21, paragraph 5.1.1.g. | Fort Irwin: The PWS states that “The Contractor shall prepare and submit, for Army approval, SSWPs for each project listed in PWS Section 5.1 of this task order…” We assume that the Contractor will prepare one UFP-QAPP (5.1.1.d) that includes all projects/sites under this Task Order, and individual SSWPs for each project using the UFP-QAPP format. Five (5) SSWPs will be provided for each project as listed in section 5.1.2 of the PWS (i.e., 1. PFAS On-Installation SSI Project, 2. PFAS On-Installation RI Project, 3. PFAS Barstow-Daggett Airport RI Project, 4. Active/Inactive Landfill Project, and 5. FTIR-02/04 LTM Project). Each Project SSWP will include all the AOPIs/sites specified under that project. Can the government please confirm this is correct? | Correct. | X | |||
| 95 | Attachment 2, Technical Exhibit 1 (Site Descriptions) | Fort Irwin: The PWS states “…the Army believes this site [FTIR-01] should shift to a CERCLA-only approach for closure…Moving forward the sole regulatory driver at this site is CERCLA”. Since the site is transitioning to CERCLA, please: a) provide the Federal Facilities Agreement for FTIR-01, b) confirm if EPA will be the lead agency with primary authority for reviewing and approving the RI/FS, and c) confirm the level of authority California State agencies will retain (i.e., CA Water Board and DTSC) in reviewing and approving the RI/FS. | a)This site does not have an FFA. b)The Army shall be the lead agency. c)California EPA shall review the docs as a stakeholder. | X | |||
| 96 | RFP page 67 of 81, paragraph L.8.c.i and ii | Regarding the project definitions for Factor 3, do single task orders performed at a Joint Base count as a single installation or facility? An example would be a task order for services at Joint Base San Antonio to include work at Fort Sam Houston, Lackland AFB, Randolph AFB, and Camp Bullis. | See response to Question #12. | X | |||
| 97 | Attachment 9 Consent Client Authorization Letter Sample and RFP, page 66 of 81, paragraph L.8.b(9) | Attachment 9 appears only to be a consent letter, and not a separate client authorization letter. Please provide an example of a client authorization letter that meets this requirement in Section L: “For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.” | Client authoriztion letters vary depending on the commercial vendor. The Government does not have a sample client authorization letter from a commercial entity. | X | |||
| 98 | RFP, page 67 of 81, paragraph L.8.b(12) | The last sentence of paragraph L.8.b(12) states: “If offerors are utilizing the same teaming arrangements as those provided under Volume V (General Requirements) please include a statement stating so.” Please confirm that if this is the case, we are only required to include this statement in Volume II and we are not required to provide a duplicate copy of the teaming arrangement documentation in this volume. | Only the statement is required in Volume II. Team arrangements shall be provided in Volume V. | X | |||
| 99 | Attachment 2, page 24, paragraph 5.1.2.3 | Fort Irwin: Attachment 2 paragraph 5.1.2.3 states, “The PFAS Off-Site Project includes conducting RI of PFAS contamination at Army-leased property at the Barstow-Daggett Airport that may have resulted from Army activities at seven (7) on-installation sites that may have resulted from Army activities and conducting a supplemental SI at 11 on-installation sites that require an updated SI” (emphasis added).Please confirm that the Off-Site Project only includes the four AOPIs identified in the paragraph that follows (East Drainage Basin; Fire Station; Helipad – South End; and North Drainage Basin).Additionally, please confirm that these four AOPIs will be investigated in an RI, not in an SSI, which the BDA PA/SI recommends for the Helipad – South End and the North Drainage Basin. | See revised PWS section 5.1.2.3. | X | |||
| 100 | Attachment 2, page 24, Section 5.1.2.2 | Fort Irwin: Attachment 2 states “…the contractor shall conduct one (1) CERCLA RI that includes the following AOPIs…” which lists “BLAAF – Fire Extinguisher Training Area” and “BLAAF – Helipad”. However, the Ft Irwin PA-SI recommended “No action at this time” for both of these AOPIs. Please confirm these 2 AOPIs (BLAAF – Fire Extinguisher Training Area” and “BLAAF – Helipad) shall be investigated as part of the on-site RI as described in the PWS despite recommendation in the PA-SI for No action. | Yes, BLAAF AOPIs shall be included in the investigation IAW the PWS. | X | |||
| 101 | Attachment 2, page 39, paragraph 1, Attachment 2, page 42, paragraph 2 | Fort Irwin: In both referenced sections, Attachment 2 states, “During this Remedial Investigation additional releases may be identified. Characterization of the nature and extent of the groundwater impacts is required under this PWS.” Will the respective On-Installation and Off-Installation RI Projects include soil investigations to evaluate additional potential releases, or is the scope limited to characterization of the nature and extent of groundwater impacts? | Contractor shall determine through expertise. | X | |||
| 102 | Attachment 2, page 33, Appendix B Deliverables Schedule | Fort Irwin: Item No. 1, under column “Frequency”, it states, “First Draft within 30 business days after task order award date; any revisions due within 14 days of receipt of Army comments.” Since “business days” is used only for the First Draft, are “the revisions due within 14 days” to be considered 14 calendar days, or 14 business days? Additionally, the remaining items in the Deliverables Schedule under the “Frequency” column do not specify business days, and state only “days.” Please clarify if these are calendar or business days. | IAW Base PWS definition 2.8 DAY: means, unless otherwise specified, a calendar day. | X | |||
| 103 | Section 5.1.2.4 of the Small Business Suite PWS. | Please confirm that further RI sampling at FTIR-01/CCFTIR-01 to be conducted under the sample task order PWS is to address PFAS only, and that there are no other data gaps identified by the regulatory agencies that need to be addressed. | Contractor shall determine based on expertise. | X |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .