Site_Visit_Inquiries_Responses.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED\\FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Bid Inquiry Contractor Report All Inquiries

Project: Joint-Base Andrews Optimized Remediation Contract Review: W912DR-19-R-0025 (00001) (sorted by CommentID ) Displaying 91 inquiries.

Id Discipline Sheet Detail Spec

8125750 Environmental GFI Request

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Please provide the RI/FS for FI346, RR004, and RR348.

On: Aug 05 2019.

Government Response. . The RI/FS for these sites have not yet been drafted. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128243 Other 2017 5-yr review

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Do the AF and the regulators agree with the recommendations of the 2nd 5-year review completed by Jacobs? If so will the recommended work become part of the ORC scope? If there is disagreement on the recommendations will the resolution be completed ahead of the ORC award or will the successful contractor be expected to negotiate final requirements?

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . Please refer to PDF document posted to FBO under solicitation number W912DR19R0025. (Posted at bottom of the document) On: Oct 04 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128245 Other 2017 5-yr review

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Meeting minutes or other communications between the AF, Jacobs, EPA and MDE regarding the 5YR recommendations are requested.

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . Tier I meeting minutes with discussion of the 2nd 5 year review are included in the GFI. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128247 General General

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Are there OES plans and performance models for the ORC sites? If so can they be made available to the bidders.

Will OES plans and performance models be required for all sites as part of the ORC scope? Section 1.2.1 of the Draft PWS (Optimized Exit Strategy) is notes as "Not Applicable". We note that Section 1.2.2.2 (Remedy Evaluation and Recommendation) and 4.1 (PMP) of the Draft PWS require performance models. Will the requirements for performance models for all sites (Section 4.1) be in the final PWS?

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . OES plans are NOT required on any site within the ORC. The Contractor shall develop performance models for all sites listed in Table 1 of this PWS that do not have a PO of Long Term Management (LTM) and have a remedy planned and/or in place. For all sites proposed to reach RC/SC during the POP, work planning documents shall contain the performance model. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

Page 1 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

10/4/2019https://www.projnet.org/projnet/binKornHome/index.cfm?strKornCob=BicPublicReportAl...

8128249 General General

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Under the Advance Site Characterization requirements (Section 1.2.2.2) of the draft PWS a "design performance model addressing all COCs" is required. Is this a request for a 3-dimensional numerical solute transport model, or for a Performance Model as defined in Enclosure 1?

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . Only at ST-14 is Advanced Site Characterization to be conducted under the performance objective of Alternate Objectives. The requirements for any modeling are included in the PWS.

The intent is that ORC contractor will conduct a Supplemental Site Investigation to obtain the information required to develop a revised CSM in 3-D. This is anticipated to include some form of applicable 3-dimensional numerical solute transport model. A Performance Model will also be required for ST-14. On:

Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128254 General General

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Can the government clarify if PFAS is included or excluded from the contractors bid. Section 8.1.1 which lists what the contractor shall be responsible for includes this statement " (d) In the case of PFAS, Office of General Counsel approval for use as ARARs at the time of contract award". The following bullet (e) states that if Office of General Counsel approves an ARAR for PFAS after award it may be managed by contract modification. If the AF Office of General Counsel approves a PFAS ARAR prior to award will the contractor be expected to address PFAS without contract modification?

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . Section 8.1.1 d) of the PWS has been revised to indicate that the contractor will be responsible for any PFOS/PFOA state of local Maximum Concentration Level (MCL) standards as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements at time of final solicitation. Any state or local standards for PFOS/PFOA promulgated after contract award may be managed by way of contract modification if appropriate. Maryland has not promulgated a standard for PFAS for drinking water or for purposes of hazardous waste characterization. Therefore there are no Maryland ARARS for PFAS approved by AFLOA.

On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128255 General General

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Section 8.6 of the PWS requires the contractor to perform extensive MMRP services should they be required to meet the Performance Objectives of the contract. Chemical and biological warfare agents are not excluded, nor are radiological materials or wastes. ESS submittals, and all handling of munitions (to include conventional, chemical, biological, and radiologic) are within the responsibility of the contractor. Can the government provide additional information as to why this clause is included in the Draft PWS given the nature of the sites and whether it will be in the final PWS. Typically avoidance is all that is required for ERP sites under these types of contracts and the only MMRP sites included are small arms ranges and trap and skeet sites. Bid prices will be potentially significantly increased to address the risk of the high cost of a such services even if the event probability is low (handling high explosives, chemical and biological warfare agents, and radiological wastes).

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . The MMRP sites included in the PWS are considered small arms ammunition ranges. Therefore section 8.6 of the PWS has been revised accordingly. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128257 General General

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Can the distinction between the MMRP sites without an "A" designation and those with the "A" designation be defined clearly by the government. There are no files in the Admin Record for the "A" designated sites.

On: Aug 06 2019.

Page 2 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

Government Response. . MMRP sites at JBA with the "A" designation are administrative relics from the Phase II CSE. They were intended to be subranges where no contamination was detected. They now appear in numerous systems including EESOH-MIS as separate sites. They are not in the FFA. Further mention of these sites and descriptions are included in the UFP QAPP for the MMRP RI. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128258 General VI

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Please provide information on the screening levels to be used for future vapor intrusion evaluation at ST-14 buildings. It appears that residential screening levels have been used regardless of building usage; it is unclear if this is based on agency comment or by mistake. We note that both the Draft PWS and CERCLA allow clean up to be consistent with the current and reasonably anticipated use.

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . We cannot provide definitive information regarding the screening levels used for vapor intrusion as this is an issue of contention between the JB Andrews ERP team and the EPA. No VI investigation has been accepted by the EPA at JB Andrews. It is this lack of an acceptable VI study that has proven a hindrance to progress at ST-14 and SS-28. The USAF has committed to the EPA that EPA acceptable investigations will be conducted at these locations. The ORC contractor is expected to complete these investigations and have them accepted by the EPA. It is up to the ORC contractor to negotiate with the EPA whatever screening levels may be acceptable provided the EPA will even accept any form of screening results. Be aware that the traditional commercial/industrial/office land use cannot be applied to the fire stations as the firefighters sleep in the facilities. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128259 General VI

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Please confirm if all screening levels (sub-slab and indoor air) for all chemicals need to be based upon the lower of a cancer risk level of 1x10-6 or a non-cancer HI of 0.1? The analysis of sub-slab soil vapor samples where the screening levels are in the single digits of ug/m3 is particularly difficult due to matrix interference.

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . We cannot provide definitive information regarding the screening levels used for vapor intrusion as this is an issue of contention between the JB Andrews ERP team and the EPA.

Please see EPA comments on the VI work plan and Tier I meeting minutes (March 2018 in particular) for EPA feedback on VI work at JB Andrews. The USAF has committed to the EPA that EPA acceptable investigations will be conducted at ST-14 and SS-28. The ORC contractor is expected to complete these investigations and have them accepted by the EPA. It is up to the ORC contractor to negotiate with the EPA whatever screening levels may be acceptable provided the EPA will even accept any form of screening results. Be aware that the traditional commercial/ industrial/office land use cannot be applied to the fire stations as the firefighters sleep in the facilities. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128263 General VI

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Will all buildings within 100' or 150' be included in VI evaluation? The AF presentation slides are not consistent on this matter and it is noted that 100' is the distance required by guidance documents.

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . We cannot provide definitive information regarding the distance from buildings as the guidance documents state 100 feet and EPA comments in March 2018 Tier I meeting say 150 feet.

The USAF has committed to the EPA that EPA acceptable investigations will be conducted at ST-14 and SS-28. The ORC contractor is expected to complete these investigations and have them accepted by the EPA. It is up to the ORC contractor to negotiate with the EPA what distance will be acceptable. On: Sep 29

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

Page 3 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

8128264 General VI

After reviewing the agency comments on the work plan should bidders assume that actual sampling will be required (sub-slab soil vapor and/or indoor air) regardless of the outcome of a building specific preferential pathway evaluation? This would be based on the proximity to groundwater (within 100') and the finding, for example, of silty clays or clean water lenses thought to act as a vapor barriers.

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . We cannot provide definitive guidance regarding this issue. Our interpretation is that the EPA is pushing for extensive sampling. The USAF has committed to the EPA that EPA acceptable investigations will be conducted at ST-14 and SS-28. The ORC contractor is expected to complete these investigations and have them accepted by the EPA. JB Andrews supports any effort to reduce the number of samples and the resultant interruptions of the USAF mission at impacted facilities.

However, JBA support does not result in EPA acceptance. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128289 General VI

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Please provide all available utility maps for ST014.

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . Utility maps are not made available to the public. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128291 General SS-22

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

The data provided in the annual reports are general in nature and do not enable a detailed well-by-well review of performance to date. Can additional and more detailed data be provided?

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . Please refer to the ERPIMS data files. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128293 General SS-22

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Can the government clarify if power costs for standard (not thermal) treatment systems are the responsibility of the contractor or are furnished by the government

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . The USAF will supply power for standard (not thermal) treatment systems.

However the contractor may need to be responsible for installing the supporting infrastructure including power drops and or transformers required. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128298 General SS-11

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

When was the last injection event completed and are there any additional injection events planned within the current contractors POP?

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . The last injection event at SS-11 was completed in 2016. No further injections are planned within the current contractor's POP. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Page 4 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128301 General ST-14

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Is the VI scope proposed in the AMEC 2/19 VI work plan in the ORC scope?

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . The current contractor's 2019 VI work plan was submitted to the EPA. That plan was used to collect initial VI samples from locations at ST-14. The EPA rejected the plan and thusly the sample results. The work plan and EPA comments are provided in the GFI to help bidders develop their own VI approach that will be acceptable to the EPA at SS-28 and ST-14. The USAF has committed to the EPA that EPA acceptable investigations will be conducted at ST-14 and SS-28. The ORC contractor is expected to complete these investigations and have them accepted by the EPA. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128304 General ZZ349A; SR347; TS345

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

What is the current status of the MMRP RI ongoing in this area?

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . The draft final MMRP RI is included in the GFI (May 2019 version that was submitted for initial regulator review). As of 26 August 2019, the USAF was preparing responses to EPA and MDE comments on the Draft Final MMRP RI. EPA and MDE comments include on GFI. On: Sep 29

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128308 General ZZ349A; SR347; TS345

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

What is the status of the lead pellet delineation and potential removal at these 3 sites and is that work expected to be in the ORC?

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . The lead pellet delineation is complete, the results are captured in the RI (Draft Final provided in the GFI). No further delineation is anticipated to be needed in the future. The PWS includes development of PP, ROD and completion of the removal (including development of associated RAWP/RD and Temporary Airfield Construction Waivers, etc. required to complete the removal action). On:

Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128313 General ZZ349A; SR347; TS345

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Have the EPA and MDE agreed that no further soil removal or other actions (beyond lead pellet removal) is required at these sites?

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . No (As of 22 AUG 2019). In latest comments on the Draft Final RI the EPA and MDE have raised concerns that changes in the MD law regarding lead may result in more stringent cleanup levels. We hope to reaffirm EPA's and MDE's acceptance of RI and the remedial approach prior to issuance of the final RFP. This will be a topic of discussion at the Tier 1 meeting on 10-11 Sep 2019. On:

Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8128315 General SR347A; ZZ349A; TS345A

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Have the EPA and MDE agreed that no further actions are required at these sites?

Page 5 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

On: Aug 06 2019.

Government Response. . No (As of 22 AUG 2019). In latest comments on the Draft Final RI the EPA and MDE have raised concerns that changes in the MD law regarding lead may result in more stringent cleanup levels. We hope to reaffirm EPA's and MDE's acceptance of RI and the remedial approach prior to issuance of the final RFP. This will be a topic of discussion at the Tier 1 meeting on 10-11 Sep 2019. On:

Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8134085 Environmental na

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

There is a small benzene plume depicted in the NW corner of the SS-26 site. Is the contractor responsible to investigate the source of this benzene plume and remediate the plume?

On: Aug 09 2019.

Government Response. . The PO is RA-O in accordance with the approved ROD and Reduce LCC. As the ROD does not require further investigation of the plume the contractor is not required to do so. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137406 Environmental na

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Section 1.2 "Overview of ORC Scope and Requirements" of the PWS states "The intent of the ORC initiative is to advance site cleanup during the Period of Performance (POP) in the most efficient and cost effective manner as supported by a business case analysis that achieves the greatest reduction in life-cycle cost (LCC)" . During the proposal evaluation, how will the government weigh LCC reductions proposed (and subsequently measured) during the 10- year POP in comparison to total LCC reductions (includes POST POP) presented in contractor's proposal, which cannot be substantiated or verified?

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . Please refer to the draft solicitation posted to FBO under Solicitation Number W912DR19R0025. On: Oct 04 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137407 Environmental Basewide

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

For sites where there is a performance objective (PO) of "Alternate Objectives", inherently there is already some concern by the government that the current remedy is either underperforming or otherwise may be incapable of achieving the remedial goals within a reasonable timeframe (which may or may not be defined in the ROD). If contractor proposes advanced site characterization (ASC) and also assumes that the revised CSM will support an alternate remedial technology transition, what is government's expectation that the contractor's proposal include the actual implementation of the alternate technology/remedy during the POP after ROD is amended or revised?

Alternatively is full-scale implementation of an amended or alternate remedy during the POP considered to be outside the purview of the ORC?

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . JBA ERP does NOT anticipate full-scale implementation of an amended or alternate remedy to be included in this contract. However the timing of the full-scale implementation may be within the POP of this contract. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137408 Environmental Basewide

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

In Table 1 of PWS, why are some performance objectives written as "RA-O in accordance with the approved ROD and Reduce LCCs" (e.g. FT002) while others are presented as "RA-O in accordance with AF and regulatory requirements and binding agreements" (e.g., SS011) with no requirement to reduce LCC. Does the government

Page 6 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User expect that the contractor propose LCC reductions only for RA-O PO's where LCC reductions are part of the specific

PO?

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . JBA ERP expects the contractor only to propose LCC reductions only where specified in PWS. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137409 Environmental Basewide

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

In section 1.2.3, the Reduce LCC Reports are required to document the achieved reductions in costs versus the planned cost reductions and "Payments for cost avoidance as a result of reductions in required activities are contingent upon regulatory approval." Contractors generally price in the proposed reductions/optimizations in costs (i.e. fewer wells sampled or fewer analytical analyses) as part of proposed approach to reduce overall cost to the government with their bids. If the regulators do not approve the proposed reductions, the contractor(s) will have to perform the required actions at their expense. Will the government provide milestone payments for LCC Reports in the event that the planned reductions are not achieved?

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . The milestone payments will be based on the CLIN/SubClINs. The contract may propose additional, more incremental, milestone payments for negotiation during the development of the PMP. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137410 Environmental Basewide

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

For all RA-O and LTM sites where LCC reductions are indicated specifically in the PO, will the government be providing the "status quo" RA-O or LTM cost?

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . No. The government does not have actual detailed life cycle costs to provide.

The sites are currently managed under a PBR model with performance objectives oriented towards reaching RIP, RC, and SC with payments based on milestones such as monitoring report acceptance, obtaining Remedy In Place, etc. As life cycle costs such as monitoring, energy, maintaining LUCs, etc. are captured within firm fixed price system the government has no details regarding specific life cycle costs to provide to bidders. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137411 Environmental Basewide

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Based on the potential (or reality) of extremely long delays for signatures for RACRs, RODs, etc., is payment typically incrementally awarded to avoid extended WIP?

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . The milestone payments will be based on the CLIN/SubClINs. The contract may propose additional, more incremental, milestone payments for negotiation during the development of the PMP. An example would be a payment milestone for finalization of ROD ready for signature. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137412 Environmental BLNA

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Please confirm that only groundwater/landfill gas monitoring and LUC inspections will be required for IRA-O and

RA-O.

Page 7 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . At BLNA/LF-06/LF-07 only groundwater/landfill gas monitoring and LUC inspections will be required for this contract. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137413 Environmental LF-06

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Please confirm that only groundwater/landfill gas monitoring and LUC inspections will be required for IRA-O and

RA-O.

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . At BLNA/LF-06/LF-07 only groundwater/landfill gas monitoring and LUC inspections will be required for this contract. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137414 Environmental LF-07

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Please confirm that only groundwater/landfill gas monitoring and LUC inspections will be required for IRA-O and

RA-O.

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . At BLNA/LF-06/LF-07 only groundwater/landfill gas monitoring and LUC inspections will be required for this contract. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137415 Environmental MMRP Sites

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

For FI346, RR004, and RR348, the PWS indicates that the RI/FS will be completed by the existing contractor (pending approval of a no-cost contract modification). Has that modification been awarded? If so, what is the anticipated timeline of completion of the RI/FS for these sites?

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . As of 22 August the contract modification has not been made. The current SMP has scheduled the Final RI for September 2020. The Final FS is estimated for September 2021. On:

Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137416 Environmental MMRP Sites

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

For FI346, RR004, and RR348, the performance objective is for completion of a ROD and LTM. We understand that the RI and FS have not been completed. Therefore, should the contractor assume that LTM will consist of LUCs and annual inspections to verify that the sites are in compliance with the LUCs?

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . Yes, the contractor should assume that LTM will consist of LUCs and annual inspections to verify that the sites are in compliance with the LUCs. See March 2018 Tier I Meeting Minutes for more information. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137417 Environmental ST-10

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Page 8 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

The entirety of the monitoring well network has not been fully sampled since the 2014 ORC injection event. Since that event the ROD RAO has shifted along with the laboratory detection limits. As a revised risk assessment will likely be part of the proposed remedy for attaining SC, the contractor proposes sampling all 16 monitoring wells upon contract award to establish a current baseline (specifically for naphthalene and 1,2,4-TMB). Please confirm the scheduled December 2019 sampling event will only include sampling of the six (6) wells sampled in December 2018 (MW02, 03, 04, 05, 10. And 12) and not the full monitoring well network.

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . The upcoming sampling event at ST-10 will only include the six wells and NOT the full monitoring network. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137418 Environmental ST-14

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Please confirm that the Building 3487 will not be reoccupied during the POP.

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . The building is slated for demolition during FY20. It will not be reoccupied. The only potential exception is that Security Forces has asked to use the building for training for as much as two days. This training event is not confirmed nor scheduled and may not take place. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137419 Environmental ST-14

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

In Table 1, the Alternative Objectives Performance Standard includes "AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of the remedy evaluation and recommended proposed remedial strategy including successful demonstration of the existing or alternate remedy (e.g., through pilot or field test) showing decreasing trends in COCs."; is it the case that a successful pilot or field test must be demonstrated? Or would a proven mass-destruction technology, such as thermal heating, potentially be approved without prior implementation as a pilot or field test?

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . The Government cannot provide any guidance regarding this question. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137420 Environmental ST-14

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

3. The Vapor Intrusion presentation slides indicate that all buildings within 150 feet of the plume shall be included in the investigation. Are data within the final groundwater monitoring report under the existing contract to be used for delineation of the plume or data from the first sampling event under ORC?

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . Current discussions with the EPA regarding VI are based on the current plume maps. However, if the results of further investigation work, such as that scoped under alternative objectives, indicates that the Plume is more extensive than portrayed by the current reports, the EPA will want the VI work to be based on the most up to date plume results. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8137421 Environmental ST-14

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Are Annual Land Use Control reports to be produced for each site under separate covers, or as part of a basewide effort?

On: Aug 12 2019.

Government Response. . JBA will accept all the sites under a single cover. On: Sep 29 2019

Page 9 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

Current Request Status: Request Closed

8142721 Environmental na

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

In order to keep the required schedule for final proposal submittal, can the government please provide a draft RFP including Sections L and M as soon as possible so that contractors may review and comment (if necessary) so that the government has sufficient time to incorporate any changes in to the final RFP?

On: Aug 15 2019.

Government Response. . A draft solicitation has been supplied on FBO for comments to be provided by 4 October. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147110 Environmental GFI

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

A new file was posted on FBO Friday titled: "JB_Andrews_AR_Public_Site_Training_Guide_8Aug19.pdf". When attempting to open the document we received an error message that the file was corrupted. Please repost.

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . File has been re-uploaded and checked to ensure full use. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147670 Environmental NA

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

What clearance and/or escorts are required for the Presidential Air Group area?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . The Government will work with the customer to ensure escorts with the necessary clearances will be provided to the contractor to conduct work in the presidential area. The contractor will not be expected to provide construction escorts within the Presidential areas. On: Sep 29

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147673 Environmental na

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Are there any site-specific access restrictions or scheduled events that would restrict field activities or require work during non-working hours, including weekends?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . Although they are less likely to occur on weekends or "non-working hours", Ramp Freezes can occur at any time. During Ramp Freezes no personnel will be allowed on the airfield. In addition it may be very difficult for JB Andrews ERP to arrange for escorts to allow work within Presidential Areas (portions of SS-28) on weekends or "non-working hours." JBA ERP discourages work at night as the tower prefers to minimize airfield activity in controlled movement areas after dark as it is difficult for them to see vehicles on the airfield. If the contractor proposes to conduct work at night they must be mindful of safety and account for low light conditions in their plans and execution. Airfield operations may require the contractor to provide temporary lighting for work at night. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147675 Environmental na

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

What tasks/information are required to obtain approval for airfield construction/activities?

Page 10 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . JBA ERP typically facilitates and processes Temporary Airfield Construction Waivers (TACW) and only asks for supporting documentation from the contractor. These are the steps in general.

Contractor will develop general description of construction activities, including intended dates, times, type of equipment, locations on airfield, etc.,JBA may consult with the Installation Planner to determine if safety zones are impacted that may require a runway shut down while construction work is ongoing,JBA ERP will engage Airfield Operations to go over the planned construction operations to determine if there are any major issues, Contractor will complete a TACW request form with assistance from JBA ERP, JBA will submit the TACW, If needed, JBA will submit an Obstruction Evaluation request to the FAA, Contractor will complete, with assistance from JBA, an Operations Risk Management ORM) Review and risk mitigation plan (including description of airfield construction barrier layout, JBA will schedule an ORM meeting with all stakeholders, Adjust TACW request accordingly, Attach completed FAA Obstruction Evaluation to TACW request.

- Await signature of TACW.

- Process dig permit (typically two weeks) On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147676 Environmental na

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

What guidance documents must be followed to perform work on the airfield?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . The Core Guidance document is UFC 32.60-01, Appendix B1-2. On: Sep 29

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147678 Environmental na

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Will escorts be provided for flight line access in order to conduct airfield activities?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . The contractor is expected to provide their own escorts for airfield construction with the exception of Presidential Areas (portions of SS-28). JBA anticipates providing escorts with the necessary clearance for the contractor to conduct work in Presidential Areas. The Contractor will not be expected to provide construction escorts within the Presidential Areas. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147679 Environmental na

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Are there any planned MILCON projects at any of the ERP sites? If so, what are the contractor's responsibilities for restoring environmental sampling locations (i.e. monitoring wells, treatment ports) once the MILCON projects are complete?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . There is an extensive Milcon Project located south and in the southern portions of SS-28. It is ongoing.

Details of the construction are sensitive in terms of security and cannot be disclosed within this forum.

However, the scope of the current project is outlined within the PAR EIS located at https://parprogrameis.com/. The selected alternatives are outlined in the two completed RODs. Further details of the selected alternative are found within the EIS document itself.

The installation has further announced their intent to seek funding to replace the fire stations (one is at SS- 28, the other at ST-14). The current plans are not finalized but involve constructing new fire stations at nearby locations and then demolishing the currently existing fire stations once the mission has moved to the new locations.

The 113th is planning to replace all airfield pavement at their portion of the Airfield (SS-26). JB Andrews ERP is working with 113th to ensure that the existing wells are not damaged during construction.

Page 11 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

JB Andrews will be developing an expansion to the small arms range located immediately north of LF-05.

The JB Andrews ERP is working to ensure that the stormwater systems being installed do not result in increased infiltration of water into the subsurface and subsequently into the landfill.

The Milcon project is responsible for restoring environmental sampling points. The primary concern for ORC contractors is to schedule their work such as not to interfere with construction activity. On: Oct 03 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147681 Environmental na

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Will any IDW require disposal IAW proper disposal procedures for PFAS?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . Currently the JBA ERP only addresses PFAS in IDW for IDW that is generated while collecting samples for PFAS. PFAS is not being addressed in any other IDW as there are no regulations that require it. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147682 Environmental na

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Who is responsible for payment of utilities, including hydrant water? If the contractor is responsible, what are the current rates?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . The USAF will pay for electricity, water and sewage, however the contractor will be required to pay for infrastructure and drops. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147683 Environmental na

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Is separate security clearance/approval required to access the Davidsonville site?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . Access to the unfenced portion of Davidsonville requires the same access process as getting on JB Andrews. Access to the fenced portion of Davidsonville does not require any additional clearance but coordination is required. Such coordination is typically provided by the JBA ERP program. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147692 General UFP-QAPP

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

It was noted during the site visit that a Basewide UFP-QAPP will need to be developed and that site-specific addenda containing worksheets will be developed for each site as needed. Can you please confirm that this is the planned approach? Does the Basewide UFP-QAPP cover the DRMO and Davidsonville sites?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . The Basewide UFP-QAPP concept has been agreed to in principle by the regulators. It will be up to the contractor to determine if will be more or less advantageous to include Davidsonville and Brandywine or complete them separately. Brandywine DRMO is a separate site listed on the NPL and Davidsonville is not regulated by the EPA at all, only by the Maryland Department of Environment. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147699 General Post Remedy Management Plan

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Page 12 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

Can the Post Remedy Management Plan be provided?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . No such plan has been developed for any sites at JBA. Post Remedy activities have been typically included in the Remedial Action Plan/ Remedial Design. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147717 Specifications Section 6.2 of the PWS

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Section 6.2 of the PWS, 1st Bullet (titled 'Working Copy Documents') – it is stated that Working Copy documents are internal documents that are submitted for AF review and approval. Can you please clarify if USACE – Baltimore District would also be included in the review and approval of Working Copy documents?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . It is anticipated that USACE will review the working copy of the document. On:

Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147726 General CLIN 0005

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

CLIN 0005 (Update Basewide Conceptual Site Model, Years 1 – 10): can you please confirm that the requirement for this task is an annual update of the CSM to include groundwater measurements for wells across JBA, integration of new boing logs, and generation of new GIS data? It is noted that this approach is different from previous CSMs where a full updated Basewide CSM document was prepared once every three years and annual reports in the intervening years.

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . Confirmed. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147729 General CLIN 0009

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

CLIN 0009 (Complete Well Abandonment): it is not clear if the sub-CLINs are by year. Can you please clarify?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . The sub-CLINSs are by year. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147740 General SS026

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

It was stated that the 113th has plans to repave the apron in the SS026 work area. It is our understanding that USAF will work with the 113th to make sure wells aren't damaged/destroyed during the repaving. Who is responsible if the wells are damaged/destroyed?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . The construction team repaving the apron are responsible for repairing or replacing damaged wells. If the JBA ERP needs to replace wells at SS-26 and is unsuccessful in holding the construction team accountable then the JB Andrews ERP may ask the contractor to repair or replace the wells under the CLIN/Sub-CLINs of 008. This will result in deferment of repairs of wells at other locations on the installation. On: Sep 29 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147747 General LF005

Page 13 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

- The most recent report containing analytical sample results is the 2018 Annual Remedial Action-Operations Monitoring Report (dated April 2019). Are there any more recent reports or data available for review in either Draft or Final versions?

- The 2018 Annual Remedial Action-Operations Monitoring Report (dated April 2019) recommends 3 wells for abandonment in 2019 (MW13, MW14, and MW33). Have these wells been abandoned yet? If not, are there plans for abandonment in 2019?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . There are no more recent reports for LF-05.

The wells have not yet been abandoned. MDE and EPA have not yet accepted that these wells can be abandoned. A more detailed well by well analysis may be required by the EPA which is beyond the scope of the current contract. On: Oct 03 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147750 General MMRP sites

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

It was stated during the site visit that EPA is insisting that separate Proposed Plans be developed for each site. Can you please confirm that this is the approach for the MMRP sites?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . Confirmed. The EPA has been consistent in insisting that each site/operable unit within the FFA each have their own PP and ROD. On: Oct 03 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147762 General LF006/LF007

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

- Do the regulatory agencies take exception to including monitoring results for sites LF006 and LF007 in the same report?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . To date no. The monitoring reports are being conducted in compliance to a state requirement, that is an ARAR, and the state would prefer a single report as the sites were combined in a single request for variance from ARARs On: Oct 03 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147768 General LF006/LF007

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Do the regulatory agencies take exception to including monitoring results for sites LF006 and LF007 in the same report?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . To date no. The monitoring reports are being conducted in compliance to a state requirement, that is an ARAR, and the state would prefer a single report as the sites were combined in a single request for variance from ARARs. On: Oct 03 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147771 General LF006/LF007

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Are the analytical results and report from the 1st half of 2019 available for review?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . No (as of 23 AUG 2019). On: Oct 03 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Page 14 of 18ProjNet: Logged In User

8147775 General LF006/LF007

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

The semi-annual monitoring currently conducted is consistent with MDE's approved variance request. The semi-annual sampling is to continue for 5 years. Can you please indicate when the semi-annual sampling began? That is, what month/year was the 1st sampling event completed?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . Semiannual sampling started in September 2018. On: Oct 03 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147779 General LF006/LF007

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Does the current semi-annual sampling program (to last for 5 years) constitute IRA-Os for LF006 and LF007?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . Yes the sampling constitutes IRA-O. Once a ROD is signed, JBA anticipates that the same sampling regime will be memorialized in the ROD and completion of such sampling will then be considered part of RA-O. On: Oct 03 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147781 General LF006/LF007

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

It is difficult to predict RA-O requirements that will be required without knowing the details of the ROD. Can you please provide an update on the status of the ROD? If available, can a draft be provided for review?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . As of 21 August only the Proposed Plan for BLNA has been drafted and is currently under legal review.

The anticipated remedy is described in the FS and the contractors should use that as the basis of the RA-O. The government expects the contractor to conduct the same sampling as conducted in compliance with the State Variance requirement throughout the duration of the POP. The exception being landfill gas sampling, which JB Andrews will seek to stop 5 years after the finalization and signature of the ROD.

The additional RA-O requirement will be the development and maintenance of LUCs including signs, inspections, and annual reports.

Any additional remedial activity, if required by ROD, would be determined on a separate action. On: Oct 03

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8147786 General LF006/LF007

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Is monitoring of the BLNA wells included with the requirements of LF007?

On: Aug 19 2019.

Government Response. . Yes. The Variance Request for LF-06/LF-07 and BLNA were all…