W9128F20R0038_P0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

$176.25M Small Business Set-Aside MEGA PRAC

1. This amendment incorporates changes to Sections J, L and M. The changes are captured in red font and are follow w ith the notation

AM#0001.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 60

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Mar-2020

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W9128F20R0038

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Mar-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-Mar-2020

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DIST

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVENUE

OMAHA NE 68102-4901

W9128F 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9128F20R0038

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been added by full text:

ATTACHMENTS (AM#0001)

Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

ATTACHMENTS (AM#0001)

SECTION J- ATTACHMENT 1

COST SPREAD SHEET

Section J- Attachment Cost Spreadsheet

A. Home Office Personnel Fully Burdened Binding Capped Labor Rate (Hourly)

Units Quantity (plugged number)

Subtotal

Program Manager Hrs. 40 $

Project Manager Hrs. 200 $

Senior Contract Manager Hrs. 60 $

Procurement Specialist Hrs. 120 $

Certified Industrial Hygienist Hrs. 80 $

Health Physicist Hrs. 80 $

Total Section A- Home Office Personnel $

B. Field Office Personnel Fully Burdened Binding Capped Labor Rate (Hourly)

Units Quantity Subtotal

On-Site Superintendent/ Site Manager Hrs. 160 $

Engineer Hrs. 160 $

Attachment No. Description

Cost Spread Sheet

2 Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist 3 Chemistry Supplement to the Scope of Services (Note: This Supplement Scope of

Services may be modified at a task order level.)

4 Health and Safety Supplement to the Scope of Services (Note: This Supplement Scope of Services may be modified at a task order level.)

5 Geology Supplement to the Scope of Services (Note: This Supplement Scope of

Services may be modified at a task order level.)

6 Resume Template (AM#0001)

Chemist Hrs. 140 $

Site & Safety Health Officer Hrs. 160 $

Contractor Quality Control Supervisor Hrs. 160 $

Regulatory Specialist Hrs. 160 $

Hazardous Waste Specialist Hrs. 160 $

Scientist Hrs. 120 $

Cost Tracker Hrs. 120 $

Total Section B- Field Office Personnel $

C. Other Direct Costs Units Quantity Subtotal

Materials, supplies, equipment, and other ODCs (plugged number)

Each 10,000.00 $

Markup Rate (Base Period Year 1)

Markup Amount (Base Period Year 1) $

Subtotal

Subcontract effort (plugged number) Each 100,000.00

Markup Rate (Base Period Year 1)

Markup Amount (Base Period Year 1) $

Subtotal $

Total Section C $

Total Estimated Cost (A+B+C)

Total Estimated Cost $

Fixed Fee

Fixed Fee Rate

Fixed Fee Amount $

Total Estimate Cost Plus Fixed Fee $

*Note: The fully burdened labor rate for each labor discipline should match the actual labor rates paid for each labor discipline with the applied fringes, overhead and G&A found in the Section B, Table 1. The overhead, G&A and other indirect costs should match the percentages found in Section B, Table 5. The fixed fee should match the fixed fee cap proposed in Table 4.

SECTION J- ATTACHMENT 2

Pre -Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist

FAR 16.301-3 states that a cost-reimbursement type contract may be used only when the contractor’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract. If no cost accounting system audit that has been completed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), a Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor’s Accounting System (SF1408) must be completed by the Offeror’s Controller and/or Chief Financial Officer or by the Offeror’s Certified Public Accountant. This information will be used by the Contracting Officer, with support from DCAA if needed, to determine whether the contractor’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order.

PRE-AWARD SURVEY OF PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR ACCOUNTING SYSTEM CHECKLIST

Date:

Company Name, Contract Number, and Full Address:

Commercial and Government Agency (CAGE) Code: Number:

(Found at http://www.dlis.dla.mil/ cage_welcome.asp)

Cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency:

(DCAA) office info (Address/phone number/E-mail) - (Found at http://dcaa.mil/office_loc ator.html)

Company Point of Contact:

(Name, Title, Phone Number, and E-mail address

Name, Title, and signature of Company Principal (President/VP/Controller, etc) responsible for the design of the Accounting System.

NAME

TITLE

E-MAIL ADDRESS

SIGNATURE DATE

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW:

HAVE YOU READ THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE SF1408? (YES/NO)

HAVE YOU READ THE DCAA PUBLICATION DCAAM 7641.90 - "Information for Contractors" ON DCAA'S WEBSITE at http:www.dcaa.mil? (YES/NO) ____________

For each question, check only one box. ALL questions must have explanatory narrative text entered in the boxes. Please provide sufficient detail to describe the process (Including Account Numbers/Process Flow etc.) Each Question must be complete. Do NOT refer to previous answers, (i.e. "See Question 3 Above").

1. Has your organization's Accounting System ever been audited by DCAA?

YES (if Yes, the Offeror should attach a copy of their most recent DCAA audit report to this Modified Pre-Award Survey) or provide the DCAA Report number or DCAA POC info.

NO (if NO, answer N/A to Questions 1.A., 1.B., and 1.C. below)

1.A. If the answer is "Yes" to Question 1 above, when was the audit performed?

Within the past Year

Within the past 3 Years

Greater than 3 Years (PROVIDE THE YEAR THE AUDIT WAS PERFORMED HERE - ).

N/A (Answer to Question 1 is NO)

1.B. If the answer is "Yes" to Question 1 above, did DCAA determine the Accounting System acceptable for award of prospective contracts?

YES

NO (If NO provide an explanation below)

1.C. If the answer is "Yes" to Question 1 above, have there been any changes to the Accounting System since the DCAA audit?

YES (If YES, describe the changes below)

NO

Instruction: If the Contractor is planning on bidding on Cost Type Contracts, the contractor MUST provide explanatory narrative for all of the following questions:

1. Has your organization's Accounting System been audited by an outside Certified Public

Accountant/Consultant or other Cognizant Federal Agency other than DCAA?

YES (If YES, the Offeror MUST attach a copy of their most recent audit report to this Modified Pre-Award Survey) NOTE: Do not submit your Annual Financial Audit.

2. Is your organization's Accounting System currently in full operation?

YES (If YES, provide an explanation that validates your answer below).

NO (If NO, provide an explanation below which portions are (1) in operation, (2) set up, but not yet in operation, (3) anticipated, or (4) non-existent)

N/A (If N/A, provide an explanation below)

YES (If YES, provide an explanation that validates your answer below)

N/A (N/A, provide an explanation below)

3. Is your organization's Accounting System ready for a DCAA audit?

YES (If YES, provide an explanation that validates your answer in the box below)

NO (If NO provide an explanation below as to when you will be ready for an audit)

4. Are the loaded hourly labor rates proposed consistent with your established estimating and accounting principles and procedures and FAR Part 31, Cost Principles? (Answer this Questions "N/A" if you do not have an active proposal)

5. Does the Accounting System provide for the proper segregation of Direct Costs from Indirect Costs?

6. Does the Accounting System provide for the identification and accumulation of Direct Costs by contract?

7. Does the Accounting System provide for a logical and consistent method for the allocation of Indirect

Costs to intermediate and final cost objectives? (A contract is a final cost objective.)

8. Does the Accounting System Provide for the accumulation of costs under general ledger control?

9. Does the Accounting System provide for a timekeeping system that identifies employees' labor by intermediate or final cost objectives?

YES (If YES, provide an explanation that validates your answer below)

NO (If NO provide an explanation in the box below)

N/A (N/A, provide an explanation in the box below)

10. Does the Accounting System provide for a labor distribution system that charges Direct and Indirect labor to the appropriate cost objectives?

11. Does the Accounting System provide for an interim (at least monthly) determination of costs charged to a contract through routine posting of books of account?

12. Does the Accounting System provide for an exclusion of costs charged to government contracts of amounts which are not allowable in terms of FAR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, or other contract provisions?

YES (If YES, provide an explanation that validates your answer below)

13. Does the Accounting System provide for the identification of costs by contract line item and by units (as if each unit or line item were a separate contract) if required by the proposed contract?

YES (If YES, provide an explanation that validates your answer below)

14. Does the Accounting System provide for the segregation of preproduction costs from production costs?

15. Does the Accounting System provide financial information required by contract clauses concerning limitation of cost (FAR 52.232.20) or limitation on payments (FAR 52.216-16)?

YES (If YES, provide an explanation that validates your answer below)

16. Does the Accounting System provide financial information required to support requests for Progress Payments?

17. Is the Accounting System designed, and are the records maintained, in such manner that adequate, reliable data are developed for use in pricing follow-on acquisitions?

YES (If YES, provide an explanation that validates your answer below)

18. Is your organization planning on submitting proposals on Cost-Type (FAR 16.3) contracts/task orders?

19. Is your organization currently performing on Cost-Type (FAR 16.3) contracts/task orders?

N/A

END OF PRE-AWARD SURVEY OF PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR ACCOUNTING SYSTEM CHECKLIST

SECTION J- ATTACHMENT 3

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS OMAHA DISTRICT (CENWO)

CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTIONS FOR SCOPES OF SERVICES FOR CONTRACTED ENVIRONMENTAL

STUDIES

May 2019

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AGC Advanced Geophysical Classification ANSI American National Standards Institute ASQ American Society for Quality CENWO United States Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division Omaha District CERCLA Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act COPC Contaminant of Potential Concern CSM Conceptual Site Model

DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program DL Detection Limit DoD Department of Defense DoDI Department of Defense Instruction DOE Department of Energy DQCR Daily Quality Control Report DQO Data Quality Objective EDD Electronic Data Deliverable ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program ERPIMS Environmental Resources Program Information Management Systems FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites IDQTF Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force IEC International Electrotechnical Commission ISO International Organization for Standardization LOD Limit of Detection LOQ Limit of Quantitation MARLAP Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols MFR Memorandum For Record NCP National Contingency Plan NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program OSD Office of Secretary of Defense PDT Project Delivery Team PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PT Proficiency Testing (sample) QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control QSM Quality Systems Manual RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SEDD Staged Electronic Data Deliverable SOP Standard Operating Procedure SOS Scope of Services UFP-QAPP Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plan U.S. United States USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

1 Introduction to Chemistry Scope of Services

1.1 Purpose and Applicability

The Chemistry Scope of Services (SOS) is a supplement to contractual actions requiring collection, management, and use of environmental data. It complies with Section 515(a) of Public Law 106-554 (the Data Integrity Act) as implemented by the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) Memorandum, Ensuring Quality Information Disseminated to the Public by the Department of Defense, February, 2003, and requirements of Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction (DoDI) 4715.15, Environmental Quality Systems, dated December 11, 2006, and revised August 31, 2018. The Chemistry SOS requirements are established to improve continuity in data among DoD components; provide a fair open competition among commercial laboratories and environmental professionals; and promote the collection of data of known, legally defensible, and documentable quality, suitable for their intended uses.

The requirements established herein are applicable to the execution of projects within the environmental programs, including the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). This SOS applies to DoD operations, activities, and installations, including Government-owned/Contractor-operated facilities and

Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). Requirements apply to Government personnel, as well as Contractors, and any subcontractors working on behalf of United States (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and are contractually binding. All work shall be performed in accordance with the Chemistry SOS, unless otherwise specified in the Site-specific SOS. If there are any differences between this Chemistry SOS and the Site-specific SOS, execution shall follow Site-specific instructions. Site-specific instructions should be well documented along with any justifications for variance.

1.2 Compliance with Federal and State Environmental Regulations, and other non-DoD Programs

The majority of environmental work falls under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) environmental regulations covered by the Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 42 U.S. Code 103, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or other State-level programs. As such, each project’s lead regulatory agency must be identified, and any special certification or other unique requirements be firmly established. Work for non-DoD customers may apply to any or all parts of this SOS, or defer to project specific requirements.

2 Project Planning and Documentation

2.1 Quality Systems and Systematic Planning

DoD established policy for environmental quality systems in DoD 4715.15.RR-M-2, Uniform Federal Policy for Implementing Environmental Quality Systems, to improve the planning, collection, and use of environmental data. This guidance establishes consistency with American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society for Quality (ASQ) Standard E4 and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard 17025. The Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) manual was created by the Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force (IDQTF), which is composed of the USEPA, DoD, and Department of Energy (DOE) personnel. It is based on ANSI/ASQ E-4 Section 6 (Part B) and complies with EPA QA/R-5 and QA/G-5.

In order to obtain data of sufficient quality to satisfy data quality objectives (DQOs) for legally-defensible data, the USEPA, and/or state regulators require the preparation of appropriate planning documents for all environmental measurements that will be used for environmental regulatory compliance. The Contractor is responsible for preparing the appropriate planning document that complies with the USEPA or other lead regulatory agency regulations, USACE guidance, the DoD Quality Systems Manual (QSM), and USEPA guidance. The UFP-QAPP is the required format for all quality assurance (QA) planning documentation deliverables as outlined in the DoDI 4715.15, and satisfies all CERCLA and RCRA requirements for investigative purposes. The UFP-QAPP combines the work plan, the field sampling plan, and the quality assurance project plan into one uniformed standard format. A separate Accident Prevention Plan and Site Safety and Health Plan are required as either an attachment to the UFP-QAPP or as a stand-alone document. Please reference the Health and Safety SOS for USACE Northwestern Division Omaha District (CENWO) health and safety requirements. The UFP-QAPP manual and instructions can be found at USEPA, IDQTF, Uniform Federal Policy for Implementing Environmental Quality Systems: Evaluating, Assessing, and Documenting Environmental Data Collection/Use and Technology Programs, Final, Version 2, March 2005. The optimized UFP-QAPP worksheets can be found at USEPA, IDQTF, Optimized Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans Worksheets, March 2012 or USEPA, IDQTF, Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Munitions Response QAPP Toolkit, December 2018 for Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) projects, as applicable, or USEPA, IDQTF, Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Advanced Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response (AGC-QAPP), March 2016 for MMRP projects requiring AGC.

The UFP-QAPP integrates technical and quality control (QC) aspects of a project including planning, DQOs, implementation, assessment, and corrective action. The UFP- QAPP must provide information in sufficient detail regarding sample design, sample types, sample locations, interpretation scenarios, any field contingencies, sampling methodologies, and other sample handling techniques to collect data that meets the project objectives. All field tasks, including geological activities such as well design and installation, well abandonment, soil boring logging, field measurements, and surveying must be included.

Please reference the Geology SOS for CENWO geology requirements. Specifics on detection and reporting limits of analytics used to support decisions, analytical methods, sample collection methods, field decision logic, data handling, application to the Conceptual Site Model (CSM), QC practices, data submittals, and CSM updating activities must also be addressed. Data management strategies must be established within the UFP-QAPP, and appropriately handled during fieldwork to ensure that all data generated is made available to any stakeholders, decision-makers, and personnel involved in the work or near real-time decision-making. The UFP-QAPP also describes the organization and QA objectives for field sampling and laboratory efforts, and any evaluation and interpretation of the data before its use.

Please reference the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) SOS for CENWO PFAS requirements.

All procedures and activities including, but not limited to, those required for the acquisition of data shall be presented in the UFP-QAPP for approval by the USACE Project Delivery Team (PDT), state representatives, and USEPA authorities, as necessary, prior to the initiation of any fieldwork. UFP-QAPP provides project-level guidance for implementing the systematic planning process including; project management and objectives; measurement, field tasks, and data acquisition; assessment and oversight;

and data review. The UFP-QAPP is intended to be a living document and should be designed such that change pages may be provided to update the document. Modifications shall go through the appropriate approval process, prior to implementation. Any variances from the UFP-QAPP format must be approved by the USACE PDT and documented in the project file.

It is highly recommended that an initial scoping session be held as soon as possible after award to discuss approaches and initial planning steps (Basewide or Facility UFP-QAPP with Site-specific Addenda, stand-alone Site-specific UFP-QAPP, etc.) prior to beginning any document writing. It is best to have all possible Stakeholders present to allow for better consensus on approaches and requirements.

2.2 Contractor’s Chemist’s Role in Project Delivery Team

The Contractor Project Chemist shall work to understand the objectives of the project; including planning appropriate data needs, and more specifically the scope of testing such as matrices, methods, target analytes, and measurement quality objectives. The Project Chemist also performs oversight of the laboratory’s scope of accreditation to ensure it meets project requirements and Measurement Performance Criteria. Other chemistry support roles include execution/oversight of field activities; data generation, data review, data validation, and data interpretation responsibilities; and identification of nonconformance issues and monitoring of corrective actions as necessary. The Contractor/subcontractor team shall clearly define the program and Project Chemists’ involvement on all applicable project activities. General guidelines are provided in OSD memorandum, Acquisitions Involving Environmental Sampling or Testing Services, December 2007.

2.3 Environmental Laboratory and Analytical Testing

Laboratories performing environmental testing in support of DERP are required to be accredited per OSD memorandum, DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP), December 2008.

DoD ELAP accreditation is open to all environmenta laboratories that can demonstrate conformance with the DoD QSM via inspection. Proposed environmental laboratories shall follow at a minimum, the most recent version of the DoD QSM for Environmental Laboratories. The DoD QSM was adopted into DoD policy guidance as DoDI 4715.15.RR-M-1, and is available at www.denix.osd.mil. The recommendation for acceptability of an environmental laboratory and any project-specific variances from the DoD QSM will be at the discretion of the USACE Project Chemist. A variance may be allowed if the laboratory’s most recent ELAP accreditation is based on the last version of the DoD QSM and the current accreditation cycle has not been completed since the release of the most recent version of the DoD QSM.

If a laboratory fails to meet the DoD QSM or project-specific requirements at any time, the USACE Project Chemist may request the use of the laboratory be discontinued and replacement analytical services be procured from a laboratory which can meet these requirements. In addition, specific state requirements for laboratory accreditation must be met, including National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) accreditation.

Per the UFP-QAPP, definitive data is defined as analytical data that are suitable for final decision-making. Project-specific contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) must be clearly identified.

Additionally, the acceptance criteria for calibration standards, laboratory control samples, and project QC samples must be defined and strictly enforced for the COPCs or other contaminants of interest.

2.4 Data Management Procedures

The data management system covers capture and management of field data, lab data, data quality assessment, and data interpretation into a CSM for final decision-making or use. The data management system will include, but not be limited to, final archive storage and any data sharing platforms such as ftp sites or password-protected project websites. Documentation shall follow DoD standard record-keeping practices, standard document control systems, and electronic data management systems. Details are presented as flow diagrams for a conceptual overview of the data management scheme, including various organizations’ coordination, execution, and release. In order to effectively and cost efficiently manage analytical data, all contracts require definitive analytical data to be captured electronically and be evaluated by experienced environmental professionals using automated and manual data review tools.

These procedures must be captured in the UFP-QAPP and approved by all stakeholders.

Once specific projects are awarded, each project must prepare an electronic project library. The project library shall include all of the project-specific objectives in the form of measurement performance criteria for definitive data management. Default performance criteria are established within the DoD QSM for several analytical parameters in water and soil matrices. Modifications to widen or tighten criteria will be at the discretion of the USACE Project Chemist and be fully justified as a variance in a Memorandum for Record (MFR). Details to be included in the project library are the analytical methods, the matrices sampled, the target analytes reported, Detection Limits (DL) and/or Limits of Detection (LOD), Limits of Quantitation (LOQ), associated precision and accuracy limits for method QC samples, and all method-specific criteria.

3 Assessment/Oversight

3.1 Onsite Assessments and Response Actions

The Contractor and any subcontractors shall be responsible for performing QC oversight of the field-sampling efforts, overseeing the Contractor laboratory performance and results, and proposing and implementing a system to improve overall effectiveness. These QC assessment activities shall be identified and discussed in the UFP-QAPP. Routinely, these activities ensure that the provisions of the UFP-QAPP are followed, substantiate project objectives or performance-based milestones are met, and ensure payment is authorized. Acceptance criteria and contingencies are presented for each assessment activity and submitted to the Government for review and approval according to project schedule. All planned performance audits for measurement systems or field-activities and proficiency testing (PT) samples, if any, shall be identified and their frequency and reporting defined. As part of the QC assessment and oversight requirements, the Contractor shall propose solutions to any laboratory or field sampling problems that arise. For fieldwork, this includes supervising field sampling teams, performing field audits, and reviewing logbooks periodically to ensure the sampling standard operating procedures

(SOPs) are being correctly executed. This secondary review of field and laboratory data ensures equipment is correctly calibrated and used in accordance with the approved UFP- QAPP.

3.2 Data Assessment Activities – Data Verification and Validation

The Contractor shall be responsible for assessing the environmental data’s quality by performing full data verification and validation against criteria established within the analytical method, DoD QSM, project-specific DQOs, and as documented in the UFP- QAPP and electronic project library. The data assessment process applies to all data, regardless of whether it’s generated in the field or at a subcontract laboratory. The level of the data assessment required is dictated by the data’s intended use.

Data verification procedures evaluate the testing results compliance with the acceptance criteria established within the USEPA method (or other standard method), criteria in the most recent version of the DoD QSM, and/or project-specific DQOs. Full data verification is performed by evaluating documentation from sampling logs, sample shipment records, the sample’s condition upon receipt at the lab and through the analytical process (analytical instrument’s calibration, calibration verification, and all instrument performance checks), as well as the various method QC samples.

After data verification, the data is validated by the Contractor Project Chemist to determine if there is any impact to the integrity of the data or its usability. The minimum acceptable level of data validation for all data is Stage 2B as defined by USEPA Guidance for Labeling Externally Validated Laboratory Analytical Data for Superfun Use and the DoD General Data Validation Guidelines, and shall include validation of all items in the relevant DoD QSM, Appendix B, Quality Control requirement tables.

Higher stages of data validation may be required dependent on the data’s intended use. The level of data validation required shall be defined in the performance work statement.

Data verification and validation procedures shall be detailed within the UFP-QAPP per EPA QA/G-8, Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation. Data validation procedures apply decision logic and qualifiers, as necessary. Routinely, data validation procedures follow the most recent version of the DoD General Data Validation Guidelines and any current releases of DoD validation guidelines as found at https://www.denix.osd.mil/edqw/documents/documents/ or the USEPA National Functional Guidelines. These may be modified as appropriate, or the use of other project-specific protocols may be warranted. Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols (MARLAP) shall be used for radiological parameters. Data assessment qualifiers must be clearly defined and documented along with the basis for the data qualification. It is also important to clearly present data assessment qualifiers separate from any qualifiers applied initially to the data by the laboratory to avoid confusion. Finally, data representativeness can be evaluated within a context of general continuity with historic results, or within the spatial realm of a CSM.

Several options are available for software that performs verification of batch method QC samples for a variety of analytical parameters, it may not capture or assess certain sample, instrument batch-specific, or method calibration data, however. Manual review of the method-specific calibration, calibration verification, and instrument performance checks are still mandatory, and shall be required to fully verify/validate the data’s compliance with USEPA methods, the DoD QSM, and project-specific criteria. Any aspects not reviewed by automated software, but required by DoD QSM current version, Appendix B, will be manually verified and validated by the Contractor’s Project Chemist to augment the automated data validation. The results of the data assessment including data qualifiers applied as interpreted by a chemist at validation shall be summarized in the Data Quality Control Summary Report/Data Validation Report. The Data Validation Report is routinely an appendix to the report or other construction completion submittals to address QC practices and conditions of the sampling and analyses, and summarize any impact to the data’s usability. Support for specific programs may also mandate the submission of chemical and/or sampling data in electronic formats for archival / retrieval within an agency-specific database systems.

4 Data Deliverables, Forms, and Reports

4.1 Daily Quality Control Report and Cooler Receipt Forms

During the field investigation activities, Daily Quality Control Reports (DQCRs) shall be submitted to the Government at the frequency defined in the UFP-QAPP. Should problems arise, the Contractor shall notify the Government immediately. DQCRs are routinely submitted weekly by electronic mail, fax or express mail; or on a daily basis or greater frequency when problems have triggered corrective actions.

The government may also elect to require periodic submission of Cooler Receipt Forms. These documents are required by the DoD QSM and can be requested on an as-needed basis or periodically to confirm the acceptability of critical samples’ condition upon receipt at the lab.

4.2 Electronic Data Deliverables

All data shall be submitted as an electronic data deliverable (EDD) in the required unique EDD format(s) for the DoD component(s) or non-DoD customers. The USACE has adopted the Staged Electronic Data Deliverable (SEDD) 5.2 minimum of Stage 2a for all projects. All FUDS projects require the use of FUDSChem. Please reference the FUDSChem SOS for CENWO FUDSChem requirements. Air Force Projects will require an Environmental Resources Program Information Management Systems (ERPIMS) database format submission. Contractors shall coordinate data submission requirements with the USACE Project Chemist to ensure all required data are captured and submitted accordingly. Specific EDD requirements shall be developed for each specific contract or task order. Hard copy (PDF) reports must be Level IV reports with summary forms for all method quality objectives required by the DoD QSM, as well as results, chromatographs, and manual integrations completed during analysis that might need to be validated.

The electronically and manually reviewed results, including the EDD submissions, are considered to be part of the analytical data package. Failure to meet deliverable deadlines will be considered a failure to meet appropriate standards of project performance. The final data set should reflect the full complement of qualifiers and corrections that result from the dialogue between the Contractor, the Government, and other Stakeholders.

5 References

ANSI/ASQ E4. Quality Systems for Environmental Data and Technology Programs – Requirements with guidance for use.

Department of Defense (DoD). 2005. Directive 4715.1E. Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health. 19

March 2005.

DOD. 2018. Instruction (DoDI) 4715.15, Environmental Quality Systems. 11 December 2006. 31 August 2018.

DoD. 2019. 4715.RR-M-1, Department of Defense Quality Systems Manual for Environmental

Laboratories, Version 5.3, (Based on ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), ISO/IEC 17025:2017(E) and the NELAC Institute (TNI) Standard, Volume 1, September 2009. 7 May 2019.

DoD. 2018. General Data Validation Guidelines. 9 February 2018.

DoD. 2005. 4715.RR-M-2, Uniform Federal Policy for Implementing Environmental Quality Systems -

Evaluating, Assessing, and Documenting Environmental Data Collection/Use and Technology Programs, Final Version. 2 March 2005.

DoD. 2012. 4715.RR-M-3, Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets. March 2012.

ISO/IEC 17025. General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). 2007. Memorandum, Acquisitions Involving Environmental Sampling or Testing Services. 4 December 2007.

OSD. 2008. Memorandum, DOD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP).

24 December 2008.

OSD. 2003. Memorandum, Ensuring the Quality of Information Disseminated to the Public by the

Department of Defense. 10 February 2003.

OSD. 2006. Memorandum, Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans. 11 April 2006.

Staged Electronic Data Deliverable (SEDD) https://www.epa.gov/clp/staged-electronic-data- deliverable-sedd

USACE. 2006. Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise Memorandum, DoD/Army/USACE Implementation of the Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Attachment: DOD Instruction 4715.15. 8 January 2007.

USEPA. 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/R-5. March.

USEPA. 2002. Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation, EPA QA/G-8.

November.

USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Labeling Externally Validated Laboratory Analytical Data for Superfund Use, EPA 540-R-08-005. 13 January 2009.

USEPA. 2002. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/G-5. December. USEPA. 2017. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, National

Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review, OLEM 9355.0- 135, EPA-540- R-2017-001. January.

USEPA. 2017. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, National Functional

Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review, OLEM 9355.0- 136, EPA-540-R-2017.

January.

USEPA. 2005. Uniform Federal Policy for Implementing Environmental Quality Systems - Evaluating, Assessing, and Documenting Environmental Data Collection/Use and Technology Programs, Final Version. 2 March 2005.

USEPA. 2012. Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Optimized UFP-QAPP

Worksheets. March 2012.

USEPA. 2016. Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Advanced Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response (AGC-QAPP), Version 1.0. March 2016.

USEPA. 2018. Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Munitions Response QAPP Toolkit.

December 2018.

SECTION J- ATTACHMENT 4

HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

April 2019

1. General The Contractor shall review all available site information and develop the necessary documents containing health and safety criteria, procedures, and work practices sufficient to protect on-site personnel, the environment, and potential off-site receptors from hazards particular to each site. The Contractor shall utilize the services of qualified personnel to oversee the development and implementation of required safety and health documents.

2. Health and Safety Regulatory Requirements All site investigation, construction, monitoring, and operations and maintenance activities and health and safety documents required by this scope of work shall be in compliance with all applicable guidance and regulations, including but not limited to, the following:

2.1 Federal Acquisition Regulation, F.A.R. Clause 52.236-13: Accident Prevention.

2.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Safety and Health Requirements Manual, EM 385-1-1

(2014).

2.3 USACE, Safety and Occupational Health Requirements for Environmental Cleanup Projects, ER 385-1-92 (2018).

2.4 USACE, Explosives Safety and Health Requirements Manual, EM 385-1-97 (2008; as revised by

Change 1, April 2013).

2.5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standards, 10 CFR 20.

2.6 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Construction Industry Standards, 29 CFR 1926, and General Industry Standards, 29 CFR 1910.

2.7 Other applicable Federal, State, and local safety and health requirements.

3. Documents The following health and safety documents are required:

3.1 Safety and Health Program

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires all employers performing on-site activities at hazardous waste sites to develop and maintain an ongoing written Safety and Health Program in compliance with OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.120(b)/29 CFR 1926.65(b). The program, including updates, shall be made available upon request.

3.2 Accident Prevention Plan (APP)/Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP) The contractor shall develop and implement an Accident Prevention Plan (APP) which includes a Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP) as an appendix. The APP/SSHP shall address all occupational safety and health hazards (traditional construction as well as contaminant related hazards) associated with field activities. The APP/SSHP shall cover each SSHP element in Section 33.B.02 of EM 385-1-1 and each APP element in Appendix A of EM 385-1-1. SSHP elements that overlap with APP elements need not be duplicated in the APP/SSHP, provided each safety and occupational health issue receives adequate attention and detail and is documented in the APP/SSHP.

The APP/SSHP shall be developed under the direct supervision of a qualified Safety and Health Manager (SHM).

On-site activities shall not commence until the plan has been reviewed and accepted. On-site implementation and enforcement of the APP/SSHP shall be managed by a qualified Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO). See Section 33.C of EM 385-1-1 for SHM and SSHO qualifications and experience requirements.

4. Document Revisions, Addenda, and Field Modifications

Review comments issued prior to APP/SSHP approval shall be incorporated by revising and reissuing affected pages. Minor changes affecting only a few pages may be made by addenda sheets and resubmitted. On-site, unanticipated or changed field conditions encountered which were not addressed in the accepted APP/SSHP shall be immediately reported to the USACE point of contact. Field activities exposed to such situations shall be halted until the APP/SSHP has been modified to reflect the changed conditions and reviewed/accepted by

USACE.

SECTION J- ATTACHMENT 5

GEOLOGY SUPPLEMENT TO THE

SCOPE OF SERVICES OR

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

REVISED: OCTOBER 9, 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This supplement serves as the specifications for accomplishing the geology related tasks identified in the Scope of Services (or Performance Work Statement [PWS]), to which this supplement is attached. All work shall be performed in accordance with this supplement unless otherwise specified in the Site Specific Section of the Scope of Services. If there are any differences between this supplement and the Site Specific Section of the Scope of Services, the Contractor shall implement the Site Specific instructions.

The Contractor shall disregard all sections of this supplement that do not apply to the tasks as outlined in the Site Specific Scope of Services. For example, if no new monitoring wells are to be installed, then the Contractor has no reason to refer to the sections on monitoring well installation, construction diagrams, etc.

The Draft Project Report and Final Project Report referenced in this document shall be defined in the Site Specific Section of the Scope of Services. If there are any questions regarding this supplement, the Contractor shall contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE- Omaha District) Project Geologist for clarification.

Regulatory Requirements. Field investigation procedures shall be conducted in accordance with all federal, state, and local requirements. If the specifications as set forth in this Scope of Services do not meet regulatory requirements, contact the USACE Contracting Officer’s Representative (USACE-COR) for resolution of differences. The Contractor is responsible for determining applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

2.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

2.1 Work Plans

A plan shall be submitted by the Contractor for approval before any fieldwork for the project is begun which addresses all quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures to be implemented in the field. This plan shall comply with the appropriate regulatory requirements as referenced in the Scope of Services (SOS) for this project. This plan shall include, at a minimum, the Contractor’s methods, equipment, and procedures for carrying out all field work including drilling, sampling (soil, sediment, ground water, soil vapor, surface water, etc.)

monitoring well installation, well development, decontamination procedures, aquifer testing, geophysics, and surveying. This plan is not a separate document. This information shall be incorporated into the Contractor work plans, which address overall project QA/QC.

2.2 Qualified Personnel

The Contractor shall provide a qualified geologist or geological engineer who shall be on site and responsible for all logging and sampling during all soil/rock sampling activities. A qualified geologist/ engineer shall be on site and responsible for all monitoring well drilling, installation, development and testing activities. A qualified geologist/geological engineer is defined as having a baccalaureate degree in a geological science or geological engineering from an accredited university and a minimum of two (2) year’s experience in logging and/or analysis of subsurface conditions. The qualifications of the on-site geologist and/or geological engineer shall be included in the Contractor work plans. A person meeting these requirements shall be dedicated to each activity.

The Contractor shall notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) representative at least 2 weeks prior to the initiation of any field investigations so that a USACE representative can plan to be present for field oversight.

The Contractor shall notify USACE- Omaha District of any changes in personnel from that specified in the work plan.

3.0 SOIL BORINGS AND MONITORING WELL BORINGS

Soil borings and monitoring wells may be required to investigate the vertical and horizontal extent of site-specific contaminants. Soil samples for chemical analysis may also be required from borings drilled for monitoring well installations, as directed in the Site Specific Section of the Scope of Services. Guidance for field activities may be obtained from USACE EM 1110-1- 4000 (Nov. 98): “Monitoring Well Design, Installation, and Documentation at Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Sites”. All borings for soil sampling and monitoring well installations shall be drilled and sampled according to the requirements discussed in the following sections.

3.1 Utility Clearances and Permits

The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining and coordinating all utility clearances and drilling/monitoring well permits. A copy of all monitoring well permits required by state or local regulations shall be included as an appendix in the final report. If it is necessary to move a boring in order to avoid utilities, the Contractor shall be responsible for relocating the boring to a suitable location that accomplishes the intent of the original location.

The new location shall be as close as possible to the original location. Both locations shall be shown on the boring log. The Contractor shall take all reasonable precautions to protect persons and property near the drill site.

3.2 Drilling Methods

All borings shall be drilled by a method of the Contractor’s choosing unless otherwise specified under the Site Specific Section of the Scope of Service. The method(s) shall be proposed by the Contractor and approved by the USACE- Omaha District Project Geologist (PG) prior to use. The method(s) shall be discussed in the Contractor work plans. The drilling method must allow, or provisions must be made for, accurate determination of the depth to ground-water surface. If a well is to be installed in a boring, the boring shall be of sufficient diameter to permit at least two inches of annular space between the boring wall and the sides of the centered riser and screen. The boring diameter shall be of sufficient size to allow for the accurate placement of the screen, riser, centralizers, filter pack, bentonite, and grout. The Contractor’s drilling method shall maintain the integrity of the borehole (i.e.

prevent collapse) during backfilling or well installation. No grease shall be used on drill pipe joints. The use of any lubricants shall be submitted for approval in the Contractor work plans and shall be noted on the boring logs.

The Contractor shall provide documentation (brand name, chemical analysis of product composition, SDS, etc.)

for all materials introduced into the boring during drilling, for approval prior to use.

3.3 Aquifer Protection

If other than the uppermost water yielding zone is penetrated during drilling, precautions shall be taken to prevent the downward (or upward) movement of any contaminants. The drilling method and procedure to be employed shall be described in detail in the work plans for USACE- Omaha District review and approval prior to field deployment.

3.4 Decontamination

Site-specific decontamination procedures shall be addressed in the UFP-QAPP submitted for review and approval by USACE and appropriate regulatory agencies. All drill pipe, drilling tools, bits, etc. shall be free of potentially contaminating materials (i.e. grease, oil, paint, etc.) and shall be steam cleaned prior to use at each well boring.

Drilling equipment that is used down hole or may potentially cross contaminate samples, such as augers, auger center plugs, core barrels, clean out bits, down hole geophysical equipment, etc. shall be decontaminated between each boring location.