B.08.03_Official Responses to Requests for Information_NE PFAS RI_14SEP2021.pdf

Official Responses to Requests for Information (RFI)

RI for PFAS at Impacted Areas, Army Installations in the NE Region

W912DR21R0020

Id Discipline Sheet Detail Spec

9333101 Contracting 5.1.3.10 Fort Drum Remedial Investigation

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Section 5.1.3.10 Fort Drum Remedial Investigation identifies tow files: "Draft Preliminary Assessment / Site Inspection of PFAS at Fort Drum, Data Package" to be found in Attachment B, which was part of the DoD SAFE download. Please provide a copy of this referenced file as currently the only file posted under Attachment B in DoD SAFE for Fort Drum is "Fort Drum PFAS SI Phase 2 Draft Final QAPP Addendum". This material is needed for us to proceed.

By: Thomas Kalucki; Weston Solutions, Inc.; (610-701-3056). On: Jul 19 2021.

Requires Amendment.

Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. The PA/SI is not available for Fort Drum. The PWS is revised to remove reference to the PA/SI report. The Fort Drum data PA/SI data are provided with the initial GFI under "data tables" folder. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11 2021

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9333759 Contracting

1. Proposal Submission Requirements

Pg 93 of 131

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) The page limit set for Volume II, Factor 2, Corporate Experience/Past Performance is four

(4) pages. This factor requires the Offeror to submit five (5) example projects. The page limit is quite restrictive to present the projects given the wide range of required information. Please modify the page limit as two (2) pages per project for a total of ten

(10) pages.

By: Thomas Kalucki; Weston Solutions, Inc.; (610-701-3056). On: Jul 20 2021.

Requires Amendment.

Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. Page limit has been increased to 5 pages. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11 2021

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9333834 Environmental

Part 3 of the PWS "Government Furnished Information" (Page 21 of 131)

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) According to Part 3 of the PWS "Government Furnished Information" (Page 21 of 131) for the eleven (11) installations contained in the solicitation, only one (1) installation has a completed Draft Final PA/SI Report (Picatinny Arsenal) and only three (3) installations have a completed Draft PA/SI Report (Fort AP Hill, Fort Drum, and Fort Meade). The PWS also states that the PA/SI Reports for the remaining seven (7) installations will be available mid to late 2021 and the Government has provided limited data packages for those installations to offerors.

The limited data packages provided consist of figures (pdf) with AOPI locations with data (GW flow, potable wells, stormwater infrastructure, PFOS/PFOA concentrations/magni tude) that is inconsistent between sites/installations and GIS files. The limited and inconsistent data the Government has furnished does not provide reasonably definite functional or detailed specifications and creates performance uncertainties for competing offerors.

Moreover, the incumbent contractor possesses site information acquired during the PA/SI activities that is not available to other offerors. This situation restricts competition and provides the incumbent contractor a significant unfair competitive advantage.

Will the incumbent contractor be prohibited from submitting an offer in response to this solicitation? If not, will all PA/SI data including, but not limited to, data tables, boring logs, and EDR well inventory, collected by the incumbent contractor be provided to all offerors with enough time to analyze and utilize this key information? If sufficient data/reports are not available to offerors in a timely fashion, we request postponing the proposal due date until such time that the PA/SI data can be provided to all offerors in order to promote adequate price competition. We also request a prompt response to this critical question so that we can determine if this solicitation allows for fair competition.

By: Nancy Runnels; Quick Add Office; (7133041462). On: Jul 20 2021.

1-1 Government Response. Where available, the following GFI will be provided with the Amendment: OSD Memo, QC Checklist, OPSEC form, GIS data deliverable, EDR report, Research Log, Interview Logs, Recon Photo Log, Recon Logs, SDS for AFFF, SI Field Notes, SI Field Forms, SI Photo Log, Field Change Requests, DUSR, Analytical Results. This data will be included in the PA/SI report appendices and is the only additional data available for the sites in the PWS. Once the data is provided, all offerors will have the same data. If other documents are needed, the offerors will consult the installation specific Admin Record which is public record.

The Draft PA/SI reports for LEAD and Watervliet were submitted the week of 26 July and have been included with the additional GFI.

As the draft PA/SI reports are submitted, the reports will be shared with the offerors. The data has been shared in this manner to ensure all offerors have the same data.

With the issuance of the Amendment and additional GFI, the Government has provided all relevant information for this PWS. The offerors proposal shall outline their technical approach to complete the performance objectives outlined in the PWS and provide any assumptions in their proposal which will be based on the data provided. The government will evaluate each proposal based on the evaluation criteria, outlined in the RFP.

The government has extended the proposal deadline to 24 September 2021 to provide the offerors more time to review the additional GFI and provide a proper bid. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11 2021

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9334463 Environmental Government Furnished Information

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) We assume that one of the likely bidders on this solicitation will include the incumbent that conducted PFAS PA/SIs at all 11 installations. In some cases, based on the date of draft PA/SI reports provided as part of GFI, the incumbent has had access to site analytical results for more than 1 year (example: draft Report Ft. AP Hill (June 2020)). In addition, no PA/SI reports exist for 7 of the 11 installations and for the 4 PA/SI reports provided as part of GFI, none have been finalized or received regulatory review/approval. The incumbent has a competitive advantage over other prospective bidders for this solicitation, considering the short 30-day proposal period to address 11 sites, the large volume of GFI provided, the incomplete status of all PA/SI reports, and the extended period of time the incumbent has had access to relevant site data that other prospective bidders have not had.

a. In order to ensure that all contractors have an equal opportunity to be considered for award, can the government provide all data provided to the PA/SI contractor related to this opportunity? Data that this potential offeror has that would provide an unfair advantage include data from existing wells (IRP, drinking water wells, private wells, etc.)

that can be used in the RI; all meeting minutes with the regulators during the PA/SIs where acceptance of SI data was discussed or the potential scope of the RI was discussed;

all analytical data from previous investigations that may have a bearing on the scope of the RI; all boring logs for wells in the area of the PFAS sites; the complete EDR well inventory reports for all sites; and all other data that is possessed by the incumbent contractor that has not been provided.

b. Will the government extend the proposal period for one month from the time all additional GFI has been released and questions to the government have been answered?

By: Kathryn Kuwabara; EA Engineering, Science, and Technology; (4105847000). On:

Jul 20 2021. Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. Please see response to question 9333834. By: Laura

9334466 Environmental Government

All installations have a robust monitoring well network with many wells located within or adjacent to the AOPIs. However, only a limited number of existing monitoring wells were sampled during the SI to determine presence or absence of PFAS in GW. In order for contractors to evaluate how to effectively integrate the existing monitoring well network into the RI sampling program, please provide monitoring well locations, depth, and screen interval details for all installation monitoring wells?

By: Kathryn Kuwabara; EA Engineering, Science, and Technology; (4105847000). On:

Jul 20 2021. Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. The data for the sites listed in the PWS is provided with the initial GFI and the Amended GFI. The offerors proposal shall outline their technical approach to complete the performance objectives outlined in the PWS and provide any assumptions in their proposal which will be based on the data provided. The government will evaluate each proposal based on the evaluation criteria, outlined in the RFP.

Once the amended GFI is provided, all offerors will have the same data. If other documents are needed, the offerors will consult the installation specific Admin

Record which is public record. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11 2021

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9334473 Environmental Schedule

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) According to Part 3 the PWS "GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION" (PDF Pg. 21), only 1 Installation has a completed draft final PA/SI (Picatinny) and 3 installations have completed draft PA/SIs (Ft AP Hill, Ft Drum and Ft Meade). It appears that the draft reports will not be complete for the remaining 7 Installations until later in 2021.

a. For scheduling purpose, does the government expect that the 4 Installations with a completed version of PA/SI report will proceed to RI planning and fieldwork earlier than the remaining 7?

b. Can the government provide direction on its preference for prioritizing installation specific RIs in the schedule or whether it will be viewed more favorably if all RIs are executed simultaneously at award (e.g., concurrent planning sessions and field seasons)?

1-1 Government Response. Please see response to question 9333834 regarding draft PA/SI reports.

There is no preferred priority on which installation to complete first. The offerors proposal shall outline their technical approach to complete the performance objectives outlined in the PWS and provide any assumptions in their proposal which will be based on the data provided. The government will evaluate each proposal based on the evaluation criteria, outlined in the RFP.

By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11 2021

9334476 Environmental Section 5.1.2.2

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Part 5 of the PWS, Section 5.1.2.2, "Programmatic UFP-QAPP" 3rd paragraph (PDF Pg. 25) indicates that the PWS focuses on rapid site characterization to allow for accurate placement of follow-up MW installation afterwards.

a. Is contractor to assume that any follow-up MW installation after rapid site characterization will be completed as an awarded option (e.g., CLINS 17, 18 or 19)

b. If the answer is no to the above, is there a minimum number of MW installations the contractor is to assume as part of the base RI CLINs

1-1 Government Response. Follow up sampling and/or monitoring due to data gaps after the RI mobilization and field work is complete, shall be addressed under CLINs 17, 18, and 19. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore

9334479 Environmental Section 5.1.5

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Part 5 of the PWS, Section 5.1.5 , "OPTIONAL Task 16 (CLIN16): RI for PFAS at one (1) Additional Site at an Existing Army Installation Undergoing RI", (PDF Pg. 38) indicates that "Additional Site" RI (which will be conducted during the same mobilization for other sites) "shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Programmatic RI Work Plan developed under Task 2 and will meet all the requirements of TPP, preparation of Site-Specific Addendum to the RI Planning Documents....". An Additional Site can vary widely in terms of size, location and proximity to receptors, all of which affect the sampling design and risk assessment assumptions. For example, a small Additional Site that is adjacent to, or within another site, may only require a few extra samples and analytical data seamlessly integrated into the risk assessment. A very large or remote Additional Site, although unlikely, may require many types and numbers of environmental samples, pose a unique risk to receptors, and potentially require specialized forensics or adjustments to the risk assessment approach.

a. Please provide some contextual clarification (size, location, types of samples, etc.) on what contractor is to assume for an "Additional Site".

b. For scheduling purposes, can contractor assume Task 16 would be exercised during the initial Task 2 planning stage and prior to the field work mobilization, such that all Task 2 requirements (i.e., TPP meeting, submit CSM memorandum and prepare QAPP addendum) could be satisfied without affecting planning document submittal or field mobilization dates?

c. If "no" to the above, please clarify government's expectations on how contractor could satisfy Task 2 requirements, if a new site is added while already mobilized in the field?

1-1 Government Response. a. Based on prior knowledge, an additional Site will pose roughly the same magnitude of issues as other Sites already identified.

The offerors proposal shall outline their technical approach to complete the performance objectives outlined in the task and provide any assumptions in their proposal. The government will evaluate each proposal based on the evaluation criteria, outlined in the RFP.

b. Yes. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9334480 Environmental Section 5.1.3.1

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Part 5 of the PWS, Section 5.1.3.1 "Preliminary Conceptual Site Model (CSM)", (PDF Pg.

28) requires that a CSM Preliminary Memo be completed in 90 days from contract award.

Section 5.1.3.2, "Technical Project Planning (TPP) Session" requires that a TPP meeting be scheduled within 14 days after CSM submission. Section 5.1.3.3 "Site-Specific UFP-QAPP Addendum" requires that draft site-specific QAPP addendum be prepared, based on the results of the TPP meeting, within 90 days of start of RI Task. Can the government reconcile how draft site-specific QAPP addendum is due in 90 days, if the prerequisite CSM deliverable (90 days), TPP meeting (14 days), and time to incorporate TPP comments into a working site-specific QAPP addendum document will extend beyond 90 days?

By: Kathryn Kuwabara; EA Engineering, Science, and Technology; (4105847000). On:

Jul 20 2021.

1-1 Government Response. PWS has been revised to the following: "Draft Site- Specific UFP-QAPP Addendum (90 days before start of RI task)" By: Laura

9334483 Environmental Section 5.1.3.4

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Part 5 of the PWS, Section 5.1.3.4 "Remedial Investigation Field Work" (PDF Pg. 29) requires that for each installation-specifi c task (i.e., CLINS 3 through 13) contractor "shall collect groundwater, surface water, sediment, and soil samples to fully characterize the nature and extent..." However, Section 5.1.7 "OPTIONAL Task 17: Additional RI Sampling and Well Construction Activities: PFAS Analytes" (PDF Pg. 39) may be exercised if additional sampling and data reporting for a site RI is required beyond what is specified in Tasks (i.e., CLINs 3 through 13).

a. Even though this is a performance-based contract, is contractor allowed to provide a basis for estimate for numbers and types of samples for RI Task 3 through 13?

b. If yes to above, if numbers and types of samples are exceeded, will Option 17 be used for additional sampling?

c. If no to above, please provide clarification on how Option 17 will be used if contractor is obligated to fully delineate nature and extent under Task 3 through 13) for each installation?

By: Kathryn Kuwabara; EA Engineering, Science, and Technology; (4105847000). On:

Jul 20 2021. Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. The offerors proposal shall outline their technical approach to complete the performance objectives outlined in the PWS and provide any assumptions in their proposal. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore

9334486 Environmental Government

Several draft or draft final SI reports provided as part of GFI reference prior UCMR3 public water supply sampling for PFAS or other private well PFAS sampling that was conducted outside the scope of the SI itself. For the sites where no draft SI report was available/provided as GFI to bidders, can the government provide similar information for any public water supply or private well conducted that was not provided with draft SI figures of SI sample results?

1-1 Government Response. Please see response to question 9333834. Where available, the following GFI will be provided with the Amendment: OSD Memo, QC Checklist, OPSEC form, GIS data deliverable, EDR report, Research Log, Interview Logs, Recon Photo Log, Recon Logs, SDS for AFFF, SI Field Notes, SI Field Forms, SI Photo Log, Field Change Requests, DUSR, Analytical Results.

This data will be included in the PA/SI report appendices and is the only additional data available for the sites in the PWS.

With the issuance of the Amendment and additional GFI, the Government has provided all relevant information for this PWS. As draft reports/new data are available, they will be provided in an Amendment to the RFP.

The offerors proposal shall outline their technical approach to complete the performance objectives outlined in the PWS and outline any assumptions in their proposal which will be based on the data provided. The government will evaluate each proposal based on the evaluation criteria, outlined in the RFP.

9334489 Environmental Section K

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Section K, page 79 of the RFP, states that the NAICS code is 562910, yet states that the "The small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, other than on a construction or service contract, but which proposes to furnish a product which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees." Can USACE verify that this procurement is a 562910 NAICS code with a small business size standard of 750 employees?

2-1 Government Response. Confirmed, this is an environmental remediation service therefore the size standard is 750 employees. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 18 2021

9334494 Environmental Page 95

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) For Volume I – Factor 1: Technical/Risk Approach, would USACE consider increasing the total pages allowed from 20 pages to 30 pages total? This will allow Contractors sufficient page count to address the technical approach for the 11 sites, but also to address Key Personnel requirements (i.e., staffing plan, retention plan) as well as the Overall Corporate Management/Structure (to include overall corporate management structure, roles and responsibilities, as well as safety, QC, schedule control, risk management, project controls/change management, and communication/report ing)?

By: Kathryn Kuwabara; EA Engineering, Science, and Technology; (4105847000). On:

Jul 20 2021.

1-1 Government Response. Page count has been increased to 30 pages.

9334499 Environmental Page 99

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Regarding Corporate experience, on page 99 of the RFP, it is stated that for ongoing projects, "75% of the major/significant milestones must be completed". Given that many

PFAS RI projects are relatively new awards, would USACE consider dropping this percentage to 50%?

By: Kathryn Kuwabara; EA Engineering, Science, and Technology; (4105847000). On:

Jul 20 2021.

Requires Amendment.

Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. Yes. Criteria have been revised to 50%. By: Laura

9334503 Environmental Page 95

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) On Page 95, the RFP limits Volume II, Corporate Experience/Past Performance to 4 pages.

Would USACE consider increasing the page limitation to 5 pages so that each project has its own page?

1-1 Government Response. Yes. See response to question 9333759. By: Laura

9334507 Environmental Page 99

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) On Page 99, the RFP asks for a sequencing of activities. Can the government provide a priority for how to sequence the sites so that all documents associated with 11 installations are not provided to the government for review simultaneously.

1-1 Government Response. There is no preferred priority on which installation to complete first. The offerors proposal shall outline their technical approach to complete the performance objectives outlined in the PWS and provide any assumptions in their proposal which will be based on the data provided. The government will evaluate each proposal based on the evaluation criteria, outlined in the RFP. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11 2021

9334511 Environmental Page 95

Can 11 x 17 pages be used for exhibits, tables, and figures?

1-1 Government Response. Yes By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore

9334514 Environmental Page 97

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) On Page 97, the RFP asks proposals include Attachment 1 (Matrix of Key Disciplines) in their responses. Is this page excluded from the page count?

1-1 Government Response. Yes. These are excluded. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11 2021

9334516 Environmental Government

The current contractor has had access to IRP documents for co-located and/or adjacent environmental sites used for the PA/SI planning and CSM understanding that were not provided as GFI. These IRP documents were used (and are referenced in the work plan(s) and reporting) by the PA/SI contractor to develop the current CSM and the rationale for selecting existing MWs. These documents provide the current contractor an unfair competitive advantage in developing the PFAS RI proposal.

a. Can the government provide the IRP documents referenced by work plans and/or PA/SI reports as GFI?

b. Can the government extend the proposal period for one month from the time all additional GFI has been released and questions to the government have been answered?

9334518 Environmental Page 96

Please confirm that using a smaller font size (e.g. 10-point) within the headers/footers is acceptable given the page setup parameters on page 96 of the RFP. Using 12-point font to present the information that is required in the headers/footers (page numbers, company name, date, and RFP number) "eats into" the space on each page for proposal narrative text.

1-1 Government Response. Font limitations do not apply to header/footers but must be legible. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On:

Aug 11 2021

9334528 Environmental Government

Given that the SI reports for the sites in this PWS are not finalized, and therefore all data is not available as GFI to all bidders, will the contractor working on the SI reports be conflicted out of proposing on this opportunity?

9335794 Environmental P10

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Are project descriptions described under Volume II, Factor 2 excluded from page count? If not, can the page count be increased to at least 10, to cover a 2 page (or single 11x17 page) project description for each project?

By: Beth Badik; Parsons; (6174299624). On: Jul 21 2021. Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. See response to question 9333759. By: Laura

9335804 Environmental Section L, Vol IV Price

RFP Section L VOLUME IV – FACTOR 4: Price, States "The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and the requirements set forth below."

No requirements are shown below. Please provide requirements.

1-1 Government Response. The language will be updated in a forthcoming amendment. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 18 2021

9335814 Environmental Section M Factor 4 Price

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) RFP Section M Factor 4:Price, States "Compliance: The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the respective sections of the solicitation applicable to Price submission (Section L Price) instructions." No requirements are provided in Section L. Please provide requirements

1-1 Government Response. Updated language in a forthcoming amendment.

By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 18 2021

9335821 Environmental Section 1.3, Table

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Section 1.3 Table 2 – Each task 1-13 only requires a site specific QAPP addendum. Section

5.1.3.3 requires a site-specific work plan/UFP-QAPP. Please confirm if a site specific workplan and UFP-QAPP are required for each installation.

1-1 Government Response. Yes. A site specific work plan/QAPP is required for each installation. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On:

9335826 Environmental Section 5.1.2.2 Page 25

Section 5.1.2.2 specifies that surface water, sediment, soil, soil vapor, fish tissue and groundwater will be sampled. Section 5.1.3.4 specifies that groundwater, surface water, sediment and soil samples will be collected. Please confirm if fish tissue and soil vapor samples will be required for analysis.

By: Beth Badik; Parsons; (6174299624). On: Jul 21 2021.

Requires Amendment.

Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. Fish tissue is not required. PWS has been revised accordingly. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11 2021

9335829 Environmental Section L, Vol II P 100

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Section L, Volume II, Page 100 of the PWS, 6th bullet "Total Dollar Amount: Indicate nature of the work – investigation, feasibility study, design, remediation, etc., and amount of that work".

Please clarify if the Government is requesting a cost breakout for each type of work, e.g., total dollar value for investigation, total dollar value for FS, etc.

By: Beth Badik; Parsons; (6174299624). On: Jul 21 2021.

1-1 Government Response. Provide dollar amount, and include a breakdown by task where applicable (RI, FS, etc.). By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore

9335833 Environmental Section L, Vol II, F2 p 99

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Section L, Volume II, Factor 2, b) (Page 99) states that "Projects must be completed . . . or for ongoing projects, 75% of the major/significant milestones must be completed . . .".

Page 99, 7th bullet states "If an Offeror presents a project that is substantially complete (more than 75%), the proposal must include an explanation of why that project should be considered."

This seems in conflict with the statement on page 99. Can the government reconcile these two statements?

By: Beth Badik; Parsons; (6174299624). On: Jul 21 2021.

Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. Item was revised to the following:

"Project Start and Completion Dates: Project must be complete Or 50% of the major/significant milestones must be completed by the date the Solicitation is issued. If an Offeror presents a project that is 50% complete, the proposal must include an explanation of why that project should be considered." By: Laura

9335842 Environmental general

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Are there areas where access to conduct the RI field work will be impeded without conducting vegetation clearance? Without a site visit, it is impossible for the Offerors to assess this. Please provide an assumption of brush cutting required.

with the initial GFI and the Amended GFI which includes site photos and field logs. The offerors proposal shall outline their technical approach to complete the performance objectives outlined in the PWS and provide any assumptions in their proposal which will be based on the data provided. The government will evaluate each proposal based on the evaluation criteria, outlined in the RFP. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11 2021

9335849 Environmental Volume I

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Assumptions on how broad an off-base investigation of migrating PFAS impacts should extend could vary greatly. Given that this is a FFP opportunity, please provide an assumption for NTE number of wells to sample.

with the initial GFI and the Amended GFI. The offerors proposal shall outline their technical approach to complete the performance objectives outlined in the PWS and provide any assumptions in their proposal which will be based on the data provided. The government will evaluate each proposal based on the evaluation criteria, outlined in the RFP. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore

9335850 Environmental GFI Tobyhanna

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) The PWS indicates that Tobyhanna Army Depot has 2 sites requiring RI; however, the SI results shown on "TYAD Preliminary SI results.pdf" indicate groundwater exceedances of OSD RSLs at 3 sites. Can the government reconcile this conflicting information? If there are only 2 sites requiring RI at Tobyhanna, please specify the 2 sites.

By: Beth Badik; Parsons; (6174299624). On: Jul 21 2021.

1-1 Government Response. Confirmed there are 3 sites. PWS was updated accordingly. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug

9335852 Environmental GFI Tobyhanna

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) As shown on "TYAD Preliminary SI results.pdf" for Tobyhanna Army Depot, the planned groundwater sample at location TYAD-B74-1-GW at APOI "Building 74 - AFFF Storage" could not be collected during the SI. There are no groundwater results available at this location. Are bidders to assume that this site does not require an RI?

9335858 Environmental 5.1.3.4 p 29

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U)

5.1.3.4 Remedial Investigation Field Work describes the requirements for IDW management during the RI but also points to Optional Task 26 for IDW procedures. Is IDW management related to base RI field work to be included in Tasks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, or will all IDW for the entire contract be handled under Optional Task 26?

1-1 Government Response. IDW management related to base RI field work to be included in Tasks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. By: Laura Wade; NAB

9337018 Contracting Pg 95 of 131

1. Proposal Submission Requirements

The technical proposal response will contain a series of tables/figures/chart s summarizing complex solutions that will present better on an 11"x 17" page. Please confirm an 11" x 17" sized sheet can be used for tables/figures/char ts assuming legible and in compliance with other font requirements.

By: Thomas Kalucki; Weston Solutions, Inc.; (610-701-3056). On: Jul 22 2021. Forward request by email.

9337023 Contracting Pg 102 of 131

1. Proposal

Volume II, Factor 2, Corporate Experience/Past Performance requires inclusion of a CPAR or PPQ for each project. Please confirm a CPAR or PPQ is excluded from the page count and will be added to the list of exempt items on pages 95-96.

By: Thomas Kalucki; Weston Solutions, Inc.; (610-701-3056). On: Jul 22

1-1 Government Response. A CPAR or PPQ is excluded from the page count.

9337777 Contracting Solicitation Section L Key Personnel Resumes

For Key Personnel resumes, on page 97 in Section L, the RFP indicates that we should present the individual's experience in the resumes on specific projects that are similar to the project in this RFP. In particular, the RFP states to "provide a brief project description to demonstrate the project is similar to the criteria in Factor 2". Factor 2, Corporate Experience/Past Performance criteria on page 99 includes: a) One project must be greater than $10M in total project costs; and b) Projects must have been completed within the last

5 years from the date the Solicitation is issued; or for ongoing projects, 75% of the major/significant milestones must be completed by the date the Solicitation is issued.

Section M criteria for Key Personnel on page 121 references evaluating Key Personnel with "Experience working on Factor 2 submitted projects or similar projects meeting criteria defined in Factor 2.

The $10M project cost, and 75% complete evaluation criteria appears to be very limiting since DOD agencies have only recently begun the RI phase of investigation. PFAS RIs that are 75% are extremely rare as evidenced by the fact that none of the Army installations covered in this solicitation have final SIs and no version of the SI is available for 7 of the

11. Will the Government consider eliminating or revising the criteria for Key Personnel project descriptions (i.e., $5M project cost and 50% complete)?

By: Kathryn Kuwabara; EA Engineering, Science, and Technology; (4105847000). On:

Jul 22 2021. Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. Each of the five (5) projects submitted must meet at least one of the criteria, not both. Key personnel do not need to meet both criteria. Additionally, the criteria was revised to 50% complete; see response to 9334499. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11

9337807 Other Factor 1

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

2. Can the Army provide an estimate of the number of residential wells that require initial sampling (at each installation or total)?

By: Mindy Scott; CALIBRE Systems, Inc.; (703-797-8500). On: Jul 22 2021. Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. Please see response to question 9334466. By: Laura

9337812 Other Factor 1

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

1. The SIs were not that comprehensive, consequently, the RIs could be pretty open-ended. The options include tasks for additional RIs in which the maximum number of additional soil, sediment, surface water, and GW well samples, etc., are specified by which reasonable cost estimates can be developed. The same does not hold for the primary tasks. Can the Army provide estimates for number of samples desired for those RIs?

By: Mindy Scott; CALIBRE Systems, Inc.; (703-797-8500). On: Jul 22 2021. Forward

9338116 Environmental RFP GFI

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Will the remainder of the Site Inspection Reports be made available prior to the due date of the proposal? We request that the Government provide the IRPs for each installation that are referenced in the GFI. There is concern that the incumbent has access to more information, which gives an advantage.

By: Beth Badik; Parsons; (6174299624). On: Jul 22 2021. Forward request by email.

9338117 Environmental Section L, VI p 97 of 131

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Additional personnel, beyond the three key personnel positions identified in the RFP, are considered essential to executing this project. Will the Government consider accepting additional resumes? If so, can these resumes be excluded from page count?

1-1 Government Response. Yes. However, it is up to the Government to determine if the additional resumes are relevant/applicable to the completing the job. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11

9338118 Environmental RFP 5.1.3.10 p 34 of 131

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U)

5.1.3.10 The RFP states 10 AOPI at Fort Drum require RI. Please provide the list of the 10 sites which require RI. Please provide the PA/SI report for Fort Drum as stated in Part 3.

9338119 Environmental 5.1.3.17 p 36 of 131

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U)

5.1.3.17 The RFP states six AOPIs at Watervliet Arsenal require RI. Please provide the list of the six sites.

1-1 Government Response. Please see response to question 9333834. the Draft Watervliet PA/SI is provided with the amendment. By: Laura Wade; NAB

9338120 Environmental RFP 5.1.3.10 p 34 of 131

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Fort Drum: Given the absence of an SI report, can the Government provide the following information: Were the proposed seep samples collected at the OSL AOPL, and if so, what were the results? These data were not included in the data package.

9338121 Environmental Section 5.1.3.4 p 29 of 131

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Section 5.1.3.4 of the RFP states: "The contractor shall collect sufficient water, soil, and sediment volume such that the government can execute additional analytical work after primary analytical work is complete: grain size analysis, cation exchange capacity, Total Oxidizable Precursors (TOP), cation/anion ratio, total metals." How would the government execute the additional analytical work? Is analytical testing of these parameters intended to be priced within one of the base or optional tasks on this contract?

1-1 Government Response. Reference was removed from the PWS. By: Laura

9338122 Contracting Solicitation Section L ProjNet Closing Date

The solicitation indicates that the ProjNet closing date is 23 July 2021. Given the amount of GFI to review, we request that ProjNet stay open for questions until at least 30 July 2021.

By: william scoville; Aptim Federal Services, LLC; (5137824964). On: Jul 22 2021. Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. ProjNet will remain open until 20 August 2021.

9338124 Environmental Section 5.1.3.15 p 35 of 131

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) The RFP indicates that Radford Army Ammunition Plant has 5 sites requiring RI; however, the data tables and results presented on "Radford Si results.pdf" indicate that only one site (Teflon-Coating Facility) had a sample result which exceeded the OSD RSLs. Please correct the RFP to state that RI is required at 1 site, or explain which other sites require an RI and why.

By: Beth Badik; Parsons; (6174299624). On: Jul 22 2021.

1-1 Government Response. PWS revised to 1 AOPI. By: Laura Wade; NAB

9338127 Environmental Section 5.1.3.1 Par 4

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Paragraph 4 of Section 5.1.3.1 Remedial Investigation Field Work includes discussion of the use of promulgated state cleanup or screening standards in the development of the RI report. For Picatinny Arsenal (New Jersey), more stringent NJDEP GWQS for several PFAS compounds (PFOA, PFOS) were adopted following the completion of the SI. Will the revised NJDEP GWQS supersede the OSD criteria for determining if groundwater is impacted at an AOPI?

1-1 Government Response. The OSD screening criteria are used to determine if a site is moving to an RI. The NJDEP GWQS will not supersede the OSD screening criteria. The offeror will complete a human health risk assessment consistent with CERCLA requirements using the reference doses provided in the OSD screening memo. If the risk assessment determines that there is an unacceptable risk under CERCLA, then a remedy will be required. The NJDEP

GWQS will then be considered ARARs in the FS when determining RAOs.

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9338129 Contracting Solicitation Section M

3. Corporate Experience / Past Performance

(FACTOR 2).

The referenced section states (emphasis added) "MINIMUM Criteria for Corporate Experience:

EACH of the five (5) projects submitted MUST meet the following criteria to be evaluated:

1) The offeror's Corporate Experience for EACH project shall QUANTITATIVELY define success, such as, achieving regulatory concurrence on PFAS REMEDIAL

INVESTIGATIONS."

Questions:

1) Is the minimum criteria for EVERY one of the five projects really "achieving regulatory concurrence on PFAS remedial investigations"? This greatly reduces (maybe even to zero) the number of bidders.

2) What is intended by the term "quantitatively define"?

By: william scoville; Aptim Federal Services, LLC; (5137824964). On: Jul 22

1-1 Government Response. RFP states "Each project must address at least one of the following minimum requirements". This is just one of the criteria and is not all inclusive. The past performance criteria is also revised per response 9334499. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11

9338130 Contracting Solicitation Section M

3. Corporate Experience / Past Performance

(FACTOR 2).

The referenced section states (emphasis added) "MINIMUM Criteria for Corporate Experience:

EACH of the five (5) projects submitted MUST meet the following criteria to be evaluated:

1) The offeror's Corporate Experience for EACH project shall QUANTITATIVELY define success, such as, achieving regulatory concurrence on PFAS REMEDIAL

INVESTIGATIONS."

Questions:

1) Is the minimum criteria for EVERY one of the five projects really "achieving regulatory concurrence on PFAS remedial investigations"? This greatly reduces (maybe even to zero) the number of bidders.

2) What is intended by the term "quantitatively define"?

By: william scoville; Aptim Federal Services, LLC; (5137824964). On: Jul 22 2021. Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. See response to 933129. By: Laura Wade; NAB

9338137 Environmental 5.1.3.6 p 31 of 131

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Section 5.1.3.6 RI Report states that the Draft RI must be received within 18-24 months of the task award. The timeline of 18-24 months does not seem sufficient to allow for the full RI cycle, e.g., the work plan stage, field work including seasonal sampling (at least two rounds of groundwater in different seasons), and conducting a HHRA and ecological risk assessment. Can the Government either extend the deliverable deadline, or clarify the field work expectations of the RI under CLIN 0003 through 0013?

1-1 Government Response. Government extended the deadline to 48 months of the task award. PWS was updated accordingly. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore

9338138 Environmental Table 2, Contract Requirements Summary p 9 of 131

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Table 2: Contract Requirements Summary, Page 9 of 131 The proposed CLINS listed in Attachment 3 (Page 2 of 131) for Tasks 3 through 13 is "RI for PFAS at" each installation. Table 2 lists the performance objectives for each task. In Table 2, "RI Report" is only listed as a performance objective for Fort Detrick (Task 5). Can the Government confirm that the bullets for Tasks 3 through 13 in Table 2 that state "Report" is referring to a RI Report, as defined in Section 5.1.3.6?

By: Beth Badik; Parsons; (6174299624). On: Jul 22 2021.

1-1 Government Response. Confirmed. PWS was revised. By: Laura Wade; NAB

9338296 Environmental N/A

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) A two-week extension is requested for the proposal due date of August 16, 2021, as listed in Block 9 of the solicitation.

By: Leigh Corbett; Leidos; (865-310-5686). On: Jul 23 2021.

1-1 Government Response. Please see response to question 9333834 for revised due date. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 11

9338298 Environmental Section 1.6.9

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) The RFP, Section 1.6.9, indicates the successful bidder will modify the PMP and work plan as required to identify those project planning changes, milestone payments, and project schedule. Is a proposed milestone payment schedule to be included with the Offeror's proposal as part of Factor 4, - Price?

By: Leigh Corbett; Leidos; (865-310-5686). On: Jul 23 2021. Forward request by email.

1-1 Government Response. No By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore

9338327 Contracting Page 102 of 131 Section L, 1. Proposal

Volume II, Factor 2, Corporate Experience/Past Performance requires a POC List that includes contact information related to either the submitted CPAR or PPQ. Please confirm the POC list is excluded from the page count and will be added to the list of except items of pages 95-96.

By: Thomas Kalucki; Weston Solutions, Inc.; (610-701-3056). On: Jul 23

1-1 Government Response. Excluded from page count. By: Laura Wade; NAB

9338335 Contracting Page 97 of 131

Section L, Volume 1, Factor 1:

Technical/Risk Approach, a) Key Personnel

Volume 1, Factor 1: Technical/Risk Approach, a) Key Personnel requires a staffing plan to outline how key personnel will interact and provide leadership for the Offeror's team.

Additionally, a retention plan to ensure all key personnel are available for the duration of the project. Are these Plans exempt from the page count given their association to the Key Personnel Resumes which are exempt from page count?

1-1 Government Response. "retention plan" was revised to "retention statement". By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug

9338345 Contracting Page 103 of 131

Section L, Volume III, Factor 3: Small Business Participation

Offerors are encouraged to submit proofs of award, accolades, SBA Surveillance Review findings, CPAR ratings that address SB utilization, testimonials from customers, etc. Please add these "proof documents" to the list of items exempt from page count as these "proofs" can be multiple pages in length.

1-1 Government Response. These items are excluded from page count. By: Laura

9338353 Contracting Page 95 of 131

Section L, Volume III, Factor 3: Small Business Participation

The maximum number of pages allowed for Volume III, Small Business Participation Plan is 25 pages. Volume III also requires a separate Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Please confirm the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not included in the 25-page allocation and indeed a separate plan without a page limit.

1-1 Government Response. Confirmed. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore

9338357 Contracting

Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices, Price Schedule

Should the Offeror add a total calculation for the 26 CLINs?

1-1 Government Response. The Price schedule will be revised in a forthcoming amendment to include totals. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 18 2021

9338362 Contracting Page 105 of 131

Volume V – Solicitation, Offer, and Award Documents

Please clarify what documentation in Section G needs to be completed and returned.

1-1 Government Response. Please review the clauses and if documentation is required submit. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On:

Aug 18 2021

9338371 Contracting Section C, PWS

5.1.3.16 Tobyhanna

Army Depot Remedial Investigation

Section 5.1.3.16 Tobyhanna Army Depot Remedial Investigation, second paragraph, identifies "Two AOPIs require a Remedial Investigation." A review of the Attachment B, Draft Preliminary Assessment / Site Inspection of PFAS at Tobyhanna Army Depot, Data Package shows three different areas where PFAS concentrations exceeded the OSD tap water risk screening level: Historical Fire Training Area, OU 5 Landfill and the Former Chromium Plating Shop and IWWTP. Will the third site be added to the PWS or can the government identify the two AOPIs requiring RIs?

By: Thomas Kalucki; Weston Solutions, Inc.; (610-701-3056). On: Jul 23 2021.

1-1 Government Response. See response to 9335850. By: Laura Wade; NAB

9338374 Contracting Section C, PWS

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U) Section C - Descriptions and Specifications, Performance Work Statement, contains multiple references to Document Review Period requirements. Please reconcile these requirements, as they are all slightly different:

•PWS Part 1.3, Performance Objectives and Standards: "... It should be assumed that all Draft Review periods will be 30 days and Regulatory Draft review periods will be 45 days."

•PWS Part 5.2, Approval of Deliverables: "... The contractor's schedule shall accommodate a 30 calendar day review on the Draft, and 60 calendar day review on the Regulatory Draft deliverables."

•PWS Part 5.8.4, Review Comments: "...The standard review time for draft are 21 days (3 weeks including weekends) and draft-final are 14 workdays (unless noted otherwise).

Regulatory review times shall be 45 days..."

By: Thomas Kalucki; Weston Solutions, Inc.; (610-701-3056). On: Jul 23 2021.

1-1 Government Response. PWS was revised to 60 calendar day review on the Regulatory Draft deliverables. By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore

9338380 Contracting Section L, Volume IV – Factor 4: Price

This is a FFP services contract. Offerors shall propose on all line items in bid schedule provided as Attachment 3. This volume shall consist of all information required to support proposed prices. The Government anticipates competition thus, certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and the requirements set forth below. There are no page limitations for this volume. For proposal preparation purposes, the expected or approximate date for initiation of contract performance is October 2021. Question: Please clarify what the "requirements set forth below" are in Volume IV – Factor 4: Price.

1-1 Government Response. The language will be updated in a forthcoming

9338381 Contracting Section L, Volume IV – Factor 4: Price

May the offeror submit the information required to support proposed prices in the offeror's own format instead of those in FAR 15.408 Table 15-2 Instructions for Submitting Cost/Price Proposal When Certified Cost or Pricing Data Are Required?

1-1 Government Response. Please refer to what the solicitation requires.

By: Laura Wade; NAB Baltimore District; (4109627675) On: Aug 18 2021

9338385 Contracting Page 95 of 131 Section L, 1. Proposal

Please confirm 11" x 17" sized sheets can be used to depict figures/charts, specifically the organizational chart as opposed to being restricted to only an 8.5" x 11" sized page.

Currently the RFP only allows the activity based schedule to be 11x17.

1-1 Government Response. See response to 9334511. By: Laura Wade; NAB

9338391 Contracting Page 95 of 131 Section L, 1. Proposal

Each paragraph should be…