11-18_June_UTTR_PBR_Q A_Round_1.pdf

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions 1 11-Jun-13 Are the surface clearance at the MMRP sites conducted as a CERCLA Time-Critical Removal Action (TCRA) or Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA)? If TCRA, is the contractor required to obtain AF and regulatory approval of an Action Memorandum? If NTCRA, is the contractor require to complete an EE/CA, public notification, facilitate public meeting and 30-day comment period, and obtain AF and regulatory of the EE/CA Report and Action Memorandum?

Surface clearance at the Air Force MMRP sites included under this contract are performed as part of the Comprehensive Site Evaluation (CSE) Phase II to address immediate threats to human health, the environment, or property, and to facilitate subsequent investigation phases involving subsurface remote sensing technologies (e.g. digital geophysical mapping [DGM]). Public notification will be managed by the Air Force, typically through consultation with the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) and Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), although there is no regulatory-mandated time-requirement for this notification.

2 11-Jun-13 Can the government please provide the draft L and M instructions for this procurement so that bidder can be working in the right direction prior to final RFP release?

No, a draft L & M will not be provided due to possibilities of changes in the document or requirement.

3 11-Jun-13 Can ATVs be used for surface clearance work? BLM is the approval authority for ATVs on non-DoD controlled land. It is highly unlikely that BLM will approve unrestricted ATV use, and typically evaluates ATV/UTV/OHV use on a project-by-project basis. Please refer to BLM MOU on FTP Site. Surface clearance is not anticipated on DoD land.

4 11-Jun-13 When will compliance sampling be conducted? The PBR Contractor would be expected to begin Compliance activities to include sampling 1 January 2014.

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

5 11-Jun-13 Can the following be uploaded to the FTP site:

1. The Surface Clearance Work Plan for MU505, TG506, and OD508

2. The Explosive Safety Submission for MRA 203, MRA 204, and MRA 206

3. All current Surface clearance SUXOS daily reports prior to 6 June 2013

The following documents will be uploaded to the UTTR PBR FTP site:

1. Draft-Final Surface Clearance Work Plan, Utah Test and Training Range Non-DoD Land: MU505 MRS and TG506 MRS, April 2013. Note that this document is currently under regulatory and stakeholder review and is subject to change.

2. DDESB-approved Explosives Site Plan Amendment 1, Air Force Military Munitions Response Program Surface Clearance, MRA 184(AL501), MRA203(MU505), MRA 204(TG506), and MRA 206(OD508), April 2013.

3. SUXOS daily reports for 4-5 June 2013 pertaining to the current Surface Clearance effort are no w available on the UTTR PBR FTP site. Current surface clearance operations at OD508 commended on 4 June 2013.

6 14-Jun-13 With regard to section 8.1.1 of the Draft PWS, what is a “reasonably” unanticipated regulatory change for which the contractor would be responsible? Will the contractor be responsible for changes in MCL?

The contractor will be responsible for reasonably anticipated regulatory changes (i.e. Changes that a regulatory authority has published a notification that changes are being considered up to the date that proposals are due.)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

7 14-Jun-13 With regard to section 8.1.1 of the Draft PWS, is the contractor responsible for radioactive waste?

There are no known radioactive waste on the sites identified in the SOO. Old target debris or buried items at sites that have not been fully evaluated or characterized may contain radioactive items (i.e.

radium painted items). The contractor will be responsible for the proper management of all materials handled, removed, or exhumed to meet contracted performance objectives.

8 14-Jun-13 With regard to section 8.1.1 of the Draft PWS, is the contractor responsible for reasonably unanticipated contaminants? For instance, if previously undetected mercury were discovered within a TCE plume, would the contractor be responsible for addressing that mercury as a part of achieving the performance objective?

The contractor will be responsible for meeting performance objectives for all Contaminants of Concern currently identified or reasonably anticipated as related to products or by-products.

9 14-Jun-13 Is it possible to achieve unrestricted land use (site closeout) for an IRP site located within an operational range?

Yes. However, a good business case analysis would have to be developed to support site close-out on an operational range.

10 14-Jun-13 Please confirm that it is the Government’s intent that the PBR contractor not perform work within defined FUDs areas.

FUDs sites are not included in the SOO.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

11 14-Jun-13 It was stated that MDAS from the active ranges was to be transported by the contractor to Oasis for final processing. Will Oasis accept MDAS from the non- DoD areas?

Yes, Materials Deemed as Safe (MDAS) from MRAs on public (non-DoD land) must be disposed at the Oasis Landfill. Note that all MDAS disposed at the Oasis Landfill must be demilitarized.

12 14-Jun-13 The Draft Final Non-DOD Land CSE Phase II (April 2013) has a limited description of item type and position data available (text, field notes, and photo logs) for the items presented in the Chapter 5 figures for the subject MRAs. Are there GIS data and/or a data table that can be made available that identifies the item type/condition, the GPS coordinates, and any other observations?

Draft-Final GIS data pertaining to the item type/condition, as presented in the Draft-Final CSE Phase II Report for non-DoD Land, will be made available on the UTTR PBR FTP site. The provided information is "draft", and is subject to change in the final version of the CSE Phase II Report for non-DoD Land.

13 14-Jun-13 Please provide access to any GIS data from the CSE Phase I/Phase II investigations.

The information is too large to transfer electronically, contact the Contract Specialist, John Tucker at john.h.tucker@usace.army.mil for DVDs

14 14-Jun-13 Please provide the LiDAR and HeliMag data collected as part of the CSE Phase II investigations.

The information is too large to transfer electronically, contact the Contract Specialist, John Tucker at john.h.tucker@usace.army.mil for DVDs

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

15 14-Jun-13 If the SubCLIN structure provided with the final RFP is similar to the draft version, in that surface clearance is to be priced based on acreage of terrain types, will it be acceptable for offerors to structure milestone payments for MEC surface clearance based acreages cleared and documented as acceptable following government QA inspection (Form 948)?

Milestone payments are made for demonstrated and verified progress toward the performance objective. An example would be cleared acreage verified by the surveillance plan.

16 14-Jun-13 Is the contractor required to recover of small arms discovered during the surface clearance of MRAs/MRSs?

The intent of the work is to address MEC issues, however any SAA encountered during the response needs to be recovered and processed as MPPEH. See attached Mar 2013 SAA Guidance.

17 14-Jun-13 What is the Government’s failure criterion for the MRAs/MRSs surface clearance?

All MEC, MD larger than 3-inches, and MPPEH are to be removed. Any and all potential visible MEC/MD/MPPEH/metallic items (even if only a small part of the item is visible) will be removed.

18 14-Jun-13 Would the discovery of small arms during QA of MEC surface clearance constitute a failure?

Only if it exceeds the established failure criteria, i.e. size

19 14-Jun-13 Who will be performing surface clearance QA for the Government?

USACE OESS's will be performing the UXO related QA functions for the government.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

20 14-Jun-13 Is there a defined timeframe within which Government QA will be performed following contractor QC?

While there is not a defined timeframe when Government QA will be performed, normally it will be performed as closely as possible following the contractor QC. There may be situations that occur that will prevent this.

21 14-Jun-13 Will all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) be allowed to be used on Bureau of Land Management and State of Utah School & Institutional Trust Lands Administration property?

BLM is the approval authority for ATVs on non-DoD controlled land. It is highly unlikely that BLM will approve unrestricted ATV use, and typically evaluates ATV/UTV/OHV use on a project-by-project basis. Please refer to BLM MOU on FTP Site.

22 14-Jun-13 Please provide a schedule for completion of each of the already-contracted surface clearance actions.

For OD508 and TG506 the current scheduled shows the fieldwork to be complete later this year with the final report in February of 2014. MU505 fieldwork completion is scheduled for February 2016 with the final report in August 2016.

23 14-Jun-13 How many local, experienced, USAF employee escorts will be available to the PBR contractor?

Hill AFB restoration office has one qualified escort person that can assist the contractor with site familiarity, obtaining required training, and initial escort requirements. The contractor is required to provide all of the fully trained individuals needed to meet the contract performance objectives.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

24 14-Jun-13 In the event that multiple sites on UTTR need to be addressed at the same time, will it be possible to obtain more than one local escort at a time?

Hill AFB restoration office has one qualified escort person that can assist the contractor with site familiarity, obtaining required training, and initial escort requirements. The contractor is required to provide all of the fully trained individuals needed to meet the contract performance objectives.

25 14-Jun-13 What are the working hours for the local, experienced, USAF employee escorts?

Generally 9 hour days, but compensatory time may be utilized to go longer if needed; however, other contingencies such as future furloughs or USAF directives may result in constraints.

26 14-Jun-13 Will the local, experienced, USAF employee escorts start their day at the contractor’s staging areas or will they start at Oasis?

USAF employee's day starts when he/she leaves place of lodging, typically Oasis or Wendover.

27 14-Jun-13 Please confirm there is no cost to the contractor for the local USAF escorts.

The local, experienced, USAF escort will be supplied at no cost to the contractor

28 16-Jun-13 Are there enough local escorts to support concurrent field operations within the UTTR?

Hill AFB restoration office has one qualified escort person that can assist the contractor with site familiarity, obtaining required training, and initial escort requirements. The contractor is required to provide all of the fully trained individuals needed to meet the contract performance objectives.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

29 16-Jun-13 Would the USACE/Air Force please confirm that neither an Explosives Site Plan nor Explosives Safety Submission (ESS) is required for intrusive activities at the IRP sites identified in Attachment 2 of the PWS as “UXO Tech Escort Req’d” since these areas are within the operational range boundary of the

UTTR?

Explosive Site Plans or Explosive Safety Submissions (ESP/ESS) are required for removal activities at any IRP sites containing munitions and/or munitions debris.

30 16-Jun-13 Would the USACE/Air Force consider eliminating the OES requirement for sites that do not or will not have active treatment system or natural attenuation as part of the remedy? For example, the MPO for the RCRA SWMUs in UTTR-North is to meet the RCRA SMP requirements. These sites will not achieve SC within the POP and meeting the RCRA SMP requirements will not reduce LCC and liability, or decrease one or more selected performance indicators (i.e. concentration, remove mass, and frequency) of remedial activities. Therefore, the OES would not progress these sites to SC.

OES requirements do not apply to Table 2 sites.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

31 16-Jun-13 Would the USACE/Air Force please provide an example of an Optimized Exit Strategy (OES) for an example site that has a “not-to-exceed” performance objective of site management involving signage and maintenance, annual visual inspection, and reporting?

Site management activities will not reduce LCC and liability, or decrease one or more selected performance indicators (i.e. concentration, remove mass, and frequency) of remedial activities.

OES requirements do not apply to Table 2 sites.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

32 16-Jun-13 Would the USACE/Air Force please provide an example of a Performance Model for an example site that has a “not-to-exceed” performance objective of site management involving signage and maintenance, annual visual inspection, and reporting? For this example site, the performance indicators (e.g., mass, concentration, frequency) will not change over time.

OES requirements do not apply to Table 2 sites.

33 16-Jun-13 Would the USACE/Air Force please provide an example of a Contingency Plan/Plan B for an example site that has a “not-to-exceed” performance objective of site management involving signage and maintenance, annual visual inspection, and reporting?

For this example site, there are specific maintenance, inspection, and reporting requirements, and more of the same is not a Plan B.

If the Contractor believes there are uncertainties that could impact their ability to perform the required activities at Table 2 sites, those uncertainties should be identified and a contingency plan provided.

If historic experience or other factors suggest the risks are of very low probability, so indicate and no contingency plan need be provided.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

34 16-Jun-13 How long does it take BLM and SITLA to process and approve cultural resource permits?

BLM: An Antiquities Permit is required from the BLM State Office and may take several weeks to obtain. A Field Work Authorization is required from the BLM Salt Lake Field Office and may be issued within a few days.

SITLA: In addition to a PLPCO Archaeological Permit, a SITLA Field Work Authorization is required which may typically be issued within a day.

A Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO) Utah Archaeological Survey Permit is also required to work on both BLM and SITLA lands.

35 16-Jun-13 Would the successful offer be able to dispose of asbestos containing material at the Oasis landfill?

Asbestos containing material CANNOT be disposed at the Oasis Landfill.

36 16-Jun-13 What is the removal criteria for surface clearance?

Would the USACE consider 2 inches in at least two dimensions as the criteria, instead of 2 inches in any dimension? The reasoning is that a 2-inch long piece of wire or nail (2 inches in only one dimension) would exceed that criteria, but would in no way present a potential explosive hazard.

All MEC, MD larger than 3-inches, and MPPEH are to be removed. Any and all potential visible MEC/MD/MPPEH/metallic items (even if only a small part of the item is visible) will be removed.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

37 16-Jun-13 Would the USACE/Air Force please provide clarify the grid dimensions and surface clearance lane spacing (spacing between UXO Technicians performing the surface clearance? This information is not evident in the SUXOS Daily Reports.

Refer to the Surface Clearance Work Plans on the FTP site.

38 16-Jun-13 The UDEQ criteria for determination of No Further Action identified in Section IV.H.1 of the UTTR Part B Permit is consistent with the requirements to support Air Force Site Closure (i.e., unrestricted use/unlimited exposure). Would the USACE/Air Force please confirm that this is the case? Would the USACE/Air Force require an NFRAP Document in additional to the UDEQ Determination of NFA Letter?

The NFA category identified in the RCRA Part B permit is equivalent to UU/UE since it requires site closure to residential risk standards, but is only applicable to RCRA locations. A NFRAP is a CERCLA category which may or may not be equivalent to UU/UE.

Supporting documentation for all NFA/NFRAP determinations' is required.

39 16-Jun-13 During the site walk it was discussed that while on the Range the contractor would be required to remain in contact with Range Control. Will the Government furnish Radios for use, or will the contractor be required to provide their own radios and if so can the Government provide the specifications for a compatible radio for use on the Range?

The contractor is responsible for purchasing and maintaining their own range radios. All radios must be programmed by Hill AFB for use at the UTTR. Likewise all programmed radios must be deprogrammed by, or surrendered to Hill AFB at the end of the contract.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

40 16-Jun-13 The Draft PWS for the SMP sites calls for the inspection of Signs, Land Use Restrictions and corner monuments – in the event of a failure off one of these items is the contractor responsible under the PWS to repair or replace? Also is the contractor required to install for the first time signs and corner stone monuments? If so can the Government provide a baseline of the current status of these items?

For all locations classified as “IRP” or “IRP RCRA” in Attachment 2, the contractor will be responsible for maintenance and repair, initial installation of signs and reporting of any disturbance to the location (removal and/or addition of waste). For those locations classified as “RCRA Compliance” in Attachment 2, the contractor will only be required to report the status of the signage and any disturbance to the location (removal and/or addition of waste to the location). The existing corner monuments were placed during previous DGM investigations; their installation, maintenance and/or repair is not specifically included in this contract. A signage status document has been uploaded to the UTTR PBRC ftp site.

41 16-Jun-13 The Contractor understands the Hill AFB maintains its own Sign Shop on Base – will the shop be available without cost to the contractor for new or repaired signs?

The Hill AFB sign shop is NOT available to the contractor.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

42 16-Jun-13 The Draft PWS for the SMP sites calls for the inspection of adherence to Land Use Restrictions, in what document or mechanism are the land use restrictions promulgated?

For the IRP locations, a Final SMP has not been created; the creation/finalization/implementation of this document and requirements will be the responsibility of the contractor as states in the SOO. For the RCRA Compliance locations, a Draft Final SMP is being reviewed by DSHW (available on UTTR PBR FTP site).

After the DSHW comments are incorporated, the resulting Final SMP for the RCRA Compliance locations will be available.

43 16-Jun-13 It is understood that the Government intends for some sites, particularly in the active range that a knowledgeable Government escort will be embedded into the field team. Can and will the Government escorts be available to support the flexible and sometimes long duration field days that will be bid for performance of field objectives. The question is intended to determine if such items as furloughs, overtime restrictions, general duties and responsibilities may hinder contractor execution of the Performance Based efforts due to a lack or changing priorities of a Government Escort.

It is possible that the Hill AFB escorts' availability may be affected by furloughs, overtime and compensatory time restrictions, and other duties as determined by Hill AFB management.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

44 16-Jun-13 Government and stakeholder reviews are paramount to efficient operations. In the PWS will the Government outline the regulator and stakeholder review times that are formalized in various MOUs/other? While these review times may exist in other documents, the measurable document between the Air Force/USACE and the Contractor is the PWS.

The PWS (SOO) incorporates by reference the documents that contain formalized review periods (i.e. AF-BLM MOU, FFA, etc.).

In general, and as formalized in documents referenced within the SOO, regulatory and stakeholder (including UDEQ, BLM and SITLA) review periods are 45-days. This does not include additional time that may be required for response-to-comments review, revision, and concurrence. The 45-day review period applies to each version of a document. If a document is considered incomplete or inadequate and is returned for revision, the 45-day review period restarts upon submittal of an acceptable version.

Other agencies, such as the Utah and Nevada State Historic Preservation Offices, are a allotted a 30-day review period for each document/version submittal, as required by law. Please refer to the SOO and its referenced documents for these and other mandated review times.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

(ROUND

1)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

SITE WALK/DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS FOR THE UTTR PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTORATION

GENERAL QUESTIONS (ROUND 1)

45 18-Jun-13 Will aircraft used during remedial operations (i.e.

HeliMag) be permitted to fly over DoD land or through Military Airspace?

All proposed flights over DoD land or through military airspace require a minimum 3 week prior-notification for scheduling purposes. All proposed flights over DoD land/ through military airspace must occur during weekdays. All proposed flights will be given a low priority and may be delayed or canceled based on Air Force Mission requirements. Aircraft MAY NOT set down or refuel on DoD land. In the event of an in flight emergency, aircraft will be allowed to set down on DoD land, but access to the aircraft will be dependent upon Air Force Mission requirements. A hold-harmless agreement must be signed by anyone that is flying over DoD land.

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions 1 11-Jun-13 Was an in-situ bioventing pilot study conducted for the subsurface contamination at Site ST079

(circa 1993-1994), as recommended in the July 1994 Decision Document for Site ST79 Building 40002 UST Fuel Release? If so, was a report prepared and will it be made available?

All available bio-venting information has been posted on the UTTR PBR FTP site

2 11-Jun-13 Has any remediation work been conducted at Site ST079 since 1994? All available remediation information has been posted on the UTTR PBR FTP site

3 11-Jun-13 Is a water source available for contractor’s use during remedial activities at Site ST079? Yes, there is a water source at the Oasis Compound. Arrangements for training and access can be made with the Oasis Environmental POC.

4 11-Jun-13 Will either the Oasis Dry landfill or the Oasis Wet landfill accept soil impacted with BETX/TPH? No, landfills at Oasis are not permitted to accept such wastes. The “Oasis Wet Landfill” is closed and no longer accepting wastes of any kind.

5 14-Jun-13 ST079 Remnant POL Contamination, Oasis (XN379): Are there additional background documents for this site after Decision Document for Site ST079 Building 4002 UST Fuel Release, Hill Air Force Base (July 1994) providing an update of the proposed in-situ bioventing activities?

All available remediation information has been posted on the UTTR PBR FTP site

SITE ST079

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions 1 11-Jun-13 Are any passive soil vapor extraction wells in place at Chemical Pit #4? If so, are they to be included in the abandonment activities?

The contract will require all infrastructure at Chem Pit 4 to be removed.

2 11-Jun-13 Do the ground water wells at Chemical Pit #4 have any equipment inside the wells?

If so, will the contractor be required to remove and dispose of the equipment?

Each of the 13 groundwater sampling wells has a dedicated, submersible stainless steel pump. Removal and disposal of the GW equipment at OU NR-1 is required in the contract.

3 11-Jun-13 Is a water source available for contractor’s use during activities at Chemical Pit #4? Yes, there is a water source at the Oasis Compound. Arrangements for training and access can be made with the Oasis Environmental POC.

CHEMICAL PIT #4

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions

1 11-Jun-13 Do the TTU groundwater monitoring wells have dedicated and operable sampling equipment (pumps, discharge pipe, power cable, etc.) in place? If so, will the contractor be allowed to use the sampling equipment?

The TTU groundwater monitoring wells (TTU-1 and TTU-2) have dedicated (installed) centrifugal pumps, discharge pipes, power cables, and control boxes. The contractor will be allowed use of all dedicated sampling equipment when sampling the TTU groundwater wells.

Likewise, the LF007 (Landfill 5) groundwater monitoring wells (MW-E, MW-F, MW-G, MW-H, MW-I, MW-J1, and MW-K) have dedicated (installed) bladder pumps, discharge tubing, and a single, dedicated pump control box. The contractor will be allowed use of all dedicated sampling equipment for the LF007 (Landfill 5) groundwater monitoring wells. Note that the contractor is responsible for providing the necessary compatible power source (i.e. electric generator) and air compressors/compressed gas (as necessary) to sample the TTU and LF007 (Landfill 5) groundwater monitoring wells.

2 11-Jun-13 Are the groundwater monitoring wells at Landfill 5 part of the TTU monitoring program? LF007 (Landfill 5) wells are not part of the TTU groundwater monitoring program. Both groundwater monitoring programs are governed by the UTTR Hazardous Waste Operating (RCRA Part B) Permit, and reporting for the TTU and LF007 (Landfill 5) groundwater sampling and analyses events are typically combined, as preferred by the Air Force and Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste.

THERMAL TREATMENT UNIT (TTU)

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions 1 11-Jun-13 Is a water source available for contractor’s use during remedial activities at Site S208? A natural pond located along the road to S208 may be used as a water source; coordination with the Hill AFB

Natural Resource Manager must be accomplished before use of this water source.

2 11-Jun-13 Is a water source available for contractor’s use during remedial activities at Site S292? Water is available in the USAF compound adjacent to S292. Coordinate with POC at adjacent compound prior to use.

3 14-Jun-13 OT-103 (S292): according to a Final Asbestos Removal Report issued in December 2010 (Time-Critical Removal Action Final Report for Asbestos Removal at OU SR-2 (IRP Site OT103), Wendover Hill Air Force Base, Utah, December 2010), all debris and COCs have been removed and disposed at an adjacent approved landfill. Please confirm what is required to achieve the MPO of RC at OT-103 (S292)?

The contractor will prepare a Decision Document which will define RC. The definition of "Response Complete" (RC) is: A milestone reached when the final remedy has achieved remedial action objectives specified in the decision document (if regulatory structure(s) require a DD for the site. Signifies that DoD has completed the RIP and the required RAOs have achieved the cleanup objectives. If there is no RA-O phase, then the RA-C end date will also be the RC date. LTM may only occur after RC is achieved.

4 14-Jun-13 Are any current LUCs in place at OT-103 (S292)? The landfill is surrounded by a chain link fence with appropriate signage and a locked gate.

SITES S208 and S292

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions 1 11-Jun-13 For MRA 206 (OD508), the Air Force completed a surface clearance of 1109 acres and the CSE Phase II Report recommended expansion of the site to 2910 acres. However, the PWS does not include surface clearance as one of the MPOs for MRA 206. Please confirm that the surface clearance of the remaining 1801 acres within the expanded site boundary of MRA 206 is not required under this contract.

Surface clearance of MRA 206 (MRS OD508), including the expanded acreage recommended in the Comprehensive Site Evaluation (CSE) Phase II Report, is being performed under separate contract and is not required under this contract. Please refer to Table 3, Draft PWS [9 May 2013].

2 16-Jun-13 Would the USACE/Air Force please provide raw GIS data collected during the ongoing surface clearance for the additional areas of MRA206/OD508?

The information is too large to transfer electronically, contact the Contract Specialist, John Tucker at john.h.tucker@usace.army.mil for DVDs.

MRA 206

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions 1 14-Jun-13 SWMU 10 (TTU Burn Pan and Trench (N010)) was listed as closed according to the final RCRA Facility Investigation Report issued in September 2004 (Final RCRA Facility Investigation Utah Test and Training Range-North Hill AFB, Utah, September 2004). The recommendations from this report indicated the site poses low ecological risk and not applicable for risk to GW. The current draft RCRA SMP (Draft – Site Management Plan – RCRA Sites, Utah Test and Training Range – North Hill AFB, Utah, April 2012), referred to as SMP herein, is not clear on the recommendations for this site. Please clarify.

Location N010 has waste in place and site is specified for the MPO only with no stretch goal (Table 2). As such, Air Force requires the contractor to prepare a regulator approved SMP and to perform such LTM as required by the SMP per the objective stated in Table 2.

2 14-Jun-13 For the following sites, the recommendations for site inspection in the SMP are not clear (specified as “During Target Maintenance”). Please clarify the timing of that requirement.

i) SWMU 30 (HAG Munitions Pits)

ii) SWMU 62 (HAG Munitions Trench)

iii) SWMU 65 (Target 24 Submunitions Trenches)

iv) SWMU 67 (Target 13 and 23 Munitions Trenches)

These target maintenance periods are scheduled usually in the fall, but are not always the same.

Windows to access these locations at other times can be arranged. All access will be performed by the Hill AFB escort through Hill Range Control.

3 14-Jun-13 For site SWMU 60 (Bomb Crater Propagation Testing Debris Dump (N060)), the SMP recommendation for groundwater monitoring is not clear. Please clarify if additional wells must be installed, developed, and at what frequency and duration the monitoring should take place.

There are no ground water monitoring wells associated with this location; no groundwater monitoring is currently required.

4 16-Jun-13 SWMU site 10 is listed in the Draft PWS with a Performance Objective to meet the SMP Objectives. However, SWMU Site 10 is not included in Table 1-1 of the SMP . Can the Government identify or define the SMP requirements for this

SWMU?

SWMU 10 is a RCRA location. The SMP for the RCRA locations is in final review by the UDSHW.

The document version being reviewed by UDSHW is available on the ftp site.

SWMUs

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions 1 14-Jun-13 Regarding the WP025 performance objective to abandon monitoring infrastructure: please clarify whether the 11 PSVE wells at the site are considered part of the monitoring infrastructure.

The contract will require all infrastructure at Chem Pit 4 to be removed.

WP025

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions 1 16-Jun-13 As a measure of current regulatory climate, has both Nevada and

Utah approved of formal Regulatory No Further Action and Air Force Site Closeout of MRS 501 NFA portions?

Department of Defense Explsoives Safety Board (DDESB) approval of a No Further Action (NFA) recommendation for a Munitions Response Site (MRS) is considered by the Air Force as the final regulatory determination/approval.

State concurrence is typically not pursued nor required. However, Nevada and Utah have both been advised of DDESB's approval of the NFA determination for MRS AL501. No response was requested or received from either State.

MRS 501

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

SITE

WALK

QUESTIONS

FOR

OFFICIAL

USE

ONLY

No. DATE Contractors' Questions Government's Answers to Contractors' Questions 1 18-Jun-13 For the Hill AFB UTTR Landfill No. 5 Closure/Post-Closure Plan (June 1988), can

Appendix B (Landfill Manifests) and Appendix C (Waste Sludge Laboratory Analysis) be provided?

Appendix B (Landfill Manifests) and Appendix C (Waste Sludge Laboratory Analysis) from the DRAFT Hill AFB UTTR Landfill No. 5 Closure/Post-Closure Plan (May 1988) are available on the UTTR PBR FTP site. The respective appendices from the Final Report (June 1988) are not readily available.

2 18-Jun-13 For the current LF007-Landfill 5 SVE pilot study, please provide recent operational and performance data so that all bidders may have this information.

The Draft Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Study Report for Landfill 5 is available on the UTTR PBR FTP site. Note that this document and its associated analyses and data are draft and have not been reviewed by the Government for accuracy, completeness, or concurrence. Likewise, this document has not undergone subsequent regulatory review.

3 18-Jun-13 For LF007-Landfill 5, what portion of the landfill contents does the Government consider to be required for the “primary source removal” (see Table 1 of the PWS)?

The "primary source" at LF007 (Landfill 5) is considered to be the contents of the landfill and landfill cells located beneath the extents of the existing landfill cap.

LF007