RFIs_16-R-0015_Graf_Remediation_Svcs_FINAL.pdf

RFP No. W912GB-16-R-0015

FY16 Grafenwoehr Remediation Services, Class III Yard

USAG Bavaria, Germany

Requests for Information

Q# Question Response**

Who will be responsible for the proper performance of the carbon adsorption wall (LGA with the final design) assuming the wall was installed per the final designs specs?

As stated in the solicitation, the awardee will be responsible for the proper performance of the remedial action.

Is it possible to “improve” the LGA concept / design of the carbon adsorption wall?

The successful offeror for this procurement is responsible for performance of the remedial action, but the actions must be completed within the contract POP and seeking host nation approval will require additional time that may not be feasible within the time constraints.

Will the government accept proposals that provide alternative options to address the hydraulic containment of the Class III yard?

See Question 2.

Has LGA’s final design of the carbon adsorption wall been accepted by the HN regulators / USACE COR?

A final Host Nation water permit has not been issued yet. However, Host Nation agreed verbally to the remediation concept.

Was the selected method chosen for the preparation of an adsorption wall subject to a patent check? It is our opinion that the method proposed in the RFP corresponds to patent no. DE 10 2011 121 901 A1 of Bauer Umwelt GmbH.

Not to the Government’s knowledge.

Please provide detailed information and planning documents regarding location, nature and function of utilities (electricity, water, sewage, etc.) in the area of the planned adsorption wall.

This information will be provided to the awardee.

Where may the site equipment (storage area, accommodation, decontamination unit) be placed? Please provide the location and connections of electricity and water services.

There is sufficient open space on the site for storage. Location of utilities will be provided to the awardee.

UXO investigation and monitoring; should this be included in the offer or will this service be provided by the Army or State agency?

UXO is the responsibility of the awardee.

Is a detailed design (location, surveying, mass, length, depth, etc.) of the adsorptive wall available that can be used as a basis for further planning?

Please provide.

All documentation regarding the adsorptive wall has been released to the proposers.

Has groundwater flow modelling and a fate‐and‐transport model (2D and 3D models) been created for the area? Can it be excluded that contaminated groundwater migrates laterally or below the adsorptive wall?

Yes.

What kind of activated carbon and sand (type, manufacturer, characteristics) was used in the pilot test? What were the results of the trial? How were the sand‐carbon mixtures prepared and checked to determine whether a uniform mixture was achieved?

Please refer to the reference documents provided in the solicitation.

What loading capacity and anticipated service life of the activated carbon‐ sand mixture have been predicted by the pilot tests?

10 years.

In the LGA design, what permeability (kf‐values) is the wall designed to achieve? In the LGA design, what measures are planned to ensure that this permeability is maintained during long‐term operation in order that the groundwater flow through the wall can be maintained securely?

Please refer to the reference documents provided in the solicitation.

Is an exchange / replacement of the activated carbon‐sand filling to be provided after a specified time?

Not during the period of performance for this contract.

In the LGA design, how is the permissible lateral and vertical flow of groundwater within the wall calculated? Are all areas of the wall provided with sufficient contact areas which will ensure adequate holding times for the adsorption of pollutants?

Please refer to the reference documents provided in the solicitation.

Which pollutant types and concentrations are to be considered for adsorption in the next 5 years of wall operation?

Please refer to the reference documents provided in the solicitation.

Has a certified statics test and slope stability certification for the main road in the planned construction area been conducted?

Not to the Government’s knowledge.

Is stakeholder involvement and permitting (i.e. Betra, distance) required from German Rail or other operators? Are restrictions on working hours for train activity to be accounted for?

USAG Bavaria involvement is necessary for mobilization. Working hour restrictions might be possible sporadically.

What are the possibilities for the storage of contaminated material from the exchange holes and how can the site be accessed from the planned interim storage? Are there access restrictions, transport weight restrictions, permitting requirements, etc. to be expected?

There is sufficient open space on the site for storage. The awardee is responsible for all waste generated from the work under contract. There are no specific permitting requirements.

Is soil contamination expected along the wall construction area? Is there already a declaration classification for the expected excavated soil material?

Please refer to the reference documents provided in the solicitation.

Who takes care of declaration sampling, analysis, and disposal of the soil cuttings? Which disposal pathways were identified for the sand‐charcoal mixture (TOC / GV‐values exceed the storage values) from borings (equipment, capacity, etc.)? What requirements are provided by the waste management facilities at the delivery (for example, moisture, calorific value, etc.)?

The awardee is responsible for all waste generated from the work under contract.

What can be expected regarding the on‐site interim storage procure (plans, documents)? Is the interim storage of sufficient size to accommodate the entire drilled soil amount? Who will operate the interim storage (for example, emissions control, water collection & treatment)?

The awardee is responsible for all waste disposal operations including soil storage. Interim storage space is sufficient.

According to the LGA final design document (p. 85) a Water Rights application was submitted in December 2014. Was this application approved? What if any limitations are imposed on the water rights permit, e.g., time limitations or maximum contaminant concentrations in monitoring wells?

See response to Question 4.

With reference to page 10 Table 1 Task 2 of the solicitation, is there an agreement in place with the HN regulator that the pump and treat system can be switched off if LGA‐design adsorption is installed?

P&T needs to stay in place as stand‐by after wall installation. If the adsorption wall works, the P&T system can be dismantled.

With reference to page 10 Table 1 Task 4 of the solicitation, this task description states “Develop a PFC monitoring and sampling plan/study …”.

Is the contractor also required to perform the sampling and analysis?

Yes. Please refer to the solicitation.

With reference to page 13, 6.7 Quality Control, please provide a list of local laboratories that hold an unexpired DoD component (USACE) approval.

Please provide a list of local laboratories that are accredited in accordance with the DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP).

See revised PWS in Amendment 0001.

The pricing schedule includes three base year CLINS and 8 Option CLINS (including CMR) to be priced as lump sum; however, Page 122 Volume II – Price requires information to support the proposed lump sum prices. In the absence of a detailed bid schedule please provide guidance on the level of detail required to support the lump sum prices.

Provide the level of detail sufficient to support the lump sum prices (i.e.

allowable costs for this project).

Based on the RFP page 107 accessing the AMRDEC Safe Application website we will proceed as a Guest as we do not have a CAC. Our question is can more than one person from ARCADIS be registered or does granting access to multiple ARCADIS representatives allow for others to submit the proposal should the primary person be not available i.e. sick?

AMRDEC registration is immediate and temporary (i.e. anyone can register at any time to upload files in the system). After the upload and logout, the same person or any other person will need to re‐register for any additional upload.

Factor 3: Key Personnel page 121 of the solicitation states Senior Hydrologist. From the description of the qualifications it appears that this should be Senior Hydrogeologist. Please confirm which discipline is required.

See revised PWS issued with Amendment 0001.

Is there a detailed schedule of services for the construction of the barrier or do the bidding contractors have to prepare this?

This must be provided by the proposers.

Regarding the technical proposal and the price proposal, is the contractor required to construct the permeable barrier exactly in accordance with the LGA design or is it possible to submit a proposal based on a modified design for a passive barrier that may provide better technical performance and/or lower long‐term costs?

See response to question 2.

In Section 6.2, one of the “Major Milestones” specified is a “risk assessment”. No other details are provided as to what risks should be assessed. Please provide details as to what submittals are required in respect of this milestone.

See revised PWS issued with Amendment 0001.

Please provide a copy of the construction permit of LRA Neustadt and water permit of WWA Weiden, or confirm that these have not been issued.

Please see response to question 4.

Please provide details of the required sampling intervals and parameter range for the monitoring program for the adsorption barrier and PFC monitoring. It is assumed that these have been proposed by LGA and approved by the Host Nation regulators.

This will be the task of the proposer, to submit a suggestion to Host Nation regulators and find an agreement with them.

Is the contractor responsible for operating the pump and treat system and should these costs be included in our proposal?

Yes.

Given that the site visit is not until 11 May, will the government consider extending the due date for the proposal so that the results of the site visit can be incorporated?

See Amendment 001.

We understand that electrical power and mains water will be provided garrison. Please confirm that this will be provided to the contractor free of charge

Yes.

If the contractor is required to pay for electrical power and mains water provided by the garrison, please provide details of the costs for these supplies.

See response to number 37.

We understand that that the contractor is required to operate the pump and treat equipment until the Host Nation regulator agrees to the system being switched off. We also understand that the pump and treat equipment is owned by the designer of the adsorption wall (LGA). In order to have competition between all bidders it is essential that the cost of operating the pump and treat system will be the same for all contractors.

How will the government ensure that the costs incurred by the contractors for operating the existing pump an treat system will be the same for all bidders?

Transfer of rented remediation systems is common place. All costs associated with the installation and operation of the adsorption wall are the responsibility of the awardee.

At what point will the contractor be required to assume responsibility of operating the pump and treat system.

Late October 2016.

We understand that initial discussions have been held with Host Nation regulators but that a water rights permit has not been obtained by the US Army. In order that we can assess the risk of the design not being approved by the Host Nation, please provide documentation regarding discussions with the Host Nation including meeting minutes and correspondence.

These documents will be provided to the awardee.

What will the liability of the contractor be if the Host Nation regulator refuses to issue a permit for the LGA design?

In this case all other requirements of the contract remain in place until the issue is resolved. This includes, but is not limited to, operation of the P&T, etc.

The document is called final design, can this Document be considered as 100% Design (German HOAI Ausführungsplanung) or does this mean this is the Final Design of LGA and that the contractor has to provide 95% and 100% Design? (German HOAI Ausführungsplanung und Werkplanung)?

The Government does not consider this project to be Construction.

WWA Weiden is said to favor a source remediation. Document 1 requires under § 2 full execution of remediation services. Can we assume that any source remediation or offsite plume remediation request will be handled under a changed condition clause?

Conditions/work that is not listed in the Performance Objectives of the solicitation are considered new work and is not covered under the contract.

The Final Design report describes several items which need to be dimensioned or determined under the design process. Can we assume that the design process has been completed so that no further dimensioning has to be accomplished prior to the start of the construction of the adsorption wall?

Specific technical requirements regarding the success of the adsorption wall are to be estimated by the proposers and ultimately determined by the awardee

The Final Design Report lines out that the ongoing hydraulic remediation can be switched off and that the installation area will be re‐established.

Does ACO expect that the cost for these works shall be included in the offer?

All costs associated with the installation and operation of the adsorption wall are the responsibility of the awardee.

If the answer is yes: Please provide details on expectations, finishing quality and areas to be reestablished, as well as overview on underground and aboveground installations to be removed.

Please refer to the reference documents provided in the solicitation.

The final Design report recommends that monitoring of gas developing from biological activities shall be performed. Have the cost for the monitoring to be included in the offer?

All costs associated with the installation and operation of the adsorption wall are the responsibility of the awardee.

The Final Design report states that optimizations of the filling mixture of the wall are possible. Can we assume that said optimizations have been determined by the mixtures and layouts described in the report, so that no additional tests or optimizations are required under this contract?

Yes.

The Final Design report recommends as activated carbon a specific product from a specific manufacturer. Is this recommendation binding for the contractor?

The Government is not aware of any specific brand name products. The awardee is responsible for the proper performance of the remedial action and obtaining any necessary host nation approvals for the approach they take.

51 Is USACE interested in receiving alternate proposals for the activated carbon product to be installed?

See response to Question 2.

The line for the adsorption wall has to be investigated for UXO before installation starts. Have the cost for this investigation to be included into the proposal in reply to this RFP?

Please see response to question 8.

Same question applies to any other areas within the footprint and operation and transport area of the drilling equipment, the tree roots to be removed and the footprints of the temporary storage areas.

Cannot determine what this question is asking. Ultimately this will be the responsibility of the awardee. The awardee is responsible for protecting Government property including, but not limited to, all natural resources, vegetation and wildlife.

Can we assume that the cost for the removal of any objects identified under the UXO investigation are handled under a changed conditions clause?

Please see response to question 8.

The Final Design report requires the verification of exact locations of sewers. Have the cost for this investigation to be included into the proposal in reply to this RFP?

All costs associated with the installation and operation of the adsorption wall are the responsibility of the awardee. Further details regarding the sewer lines can be obtained by the awardee from the USAG Bavaria DPW O&M Division.

The Final Design report states that the adsorption wall has been extended compared to previous approaches in order to protect the downgradient area. Can we assume that the length (300 m) and location of the adsorption wall shown in the Final design documents is finally determined?

Please refer to the reference documents provided in the solicitation.

57 Has the groundwater situation been investigated by modelling the influences of the wall and shut down of the Pump system?

Please refer to the reference documents provided in the solicitation.

58 If yes: Can USACE provide the model data and results in electronic format? Please refer to the reference documents provided in the solicitation.

The Final Design report provides a widths of the adsorption wall of about

0.75 m. Table on page 71 provides a range 0.45 – 0.75 m and an average of 0.6 m. This does not seem consistent. Please clarify. What is the minimum width required of the adsorption wall?

Please refer to the reference documents provided in the solicitation.

60 Are contingency quantities for spillage, overcuts, unintended additional depths included in the quantities of table 19?

Specific technical requirements regarding the success of the adsorption wall are to be estimated by the proposers and ultimately determined by the awardee

61 Have particularly quantities for bottom drainage layer, activated carbon and sand been increased to count for overcut of drills? If yes: How much?

Specific technical requirements regarding the success of the adsorption wall are to be estimated by the proposers and ultimately determined by the awardee.

62 Will the use of additional quantities be exclusively the risk of the client or the contractor?

All costs associated with the installation and operation of the adsorption wall are the responsibility of the awardee.

The Final Design report mentions that regeneration agent can be fed via the drainage pipe onto the adsorption wall. Is it expected under this contract to include cost for material and infiltration effort into the price?

All costs associated with the installation and operation of the adsorption wall are the responsibility of the awardee.

The Final Design report mentions that the inspection manholes can be used to control water quality for regeneration: Is it expected under this contract to include cost for sampling and testing and regeneration into the price?

All costs associated with the installation and operation of the adsorption wall are the responsibility of the awardee.

The Final Design Report requires installation of DN 125 aeration pipes in front of the wall installed in drillholes drilled down to 400 m ABSL. On which side of the wall and at which stand‐off distance have these wells to be installed?

Please refer to the reference documents provided in the solicitation.

66 How many wells of this type have to be installed in total? Please refer to the reference documents provided in the solicitation.

The Final Design report states that the line of the adsorption wall as to be cleared off trees by the Bundesforst? Is it expected that the contractor coordinates with Bundesforst?

Yes. But it might be necessary that the awardee has to remove part of the trees himself after coordination with the Bundesforst.

68 Do any cost have to be considered in the pricing for the services of the Bundesforst?

Yes. All costs associated with the installation and operation of the adsorption wall are the responsibility of the awardee.

69 Does the scope of the Bundesforst include the removal of tree trunks/roots?

Details will have to be negotiated with the Bundesforst by the awardee.

Awardee shall assume responsibility for all costs associated with site preparation, installation and operation of the adsorption wall.

It is assumed that the exact locations of the two sewer lines have to be determined under this contract. Is it expected that also the relocation and protection efforts are part of the scope?

Yes.

71 If yes: What are the diameters, the materials and the sewage transported? Details will be coordinated with the USAG Bavaria DPW O&M Division by the awardee.

The Final Design Report states that a Work and Safety Plan will be submitted before installation work commences. Is this another document than the HASP required under the Deliverables requirement of page ten of SF 33, respectively 6.4.5.5 of subject Design documents?

Please refer to the solicitation.

The Final Design refers to a water rights permit to install the adsorption wall system issued in December 2014. Can USACE please make available this permit to the bidders.

Please see response to question 4.

74 The volume of the wall is given at 3,060 m³, whereas 2,460 m³ are given in table 19 on page 71. Please clarify.

Specific technical requirements regarding the success of the adsorption wall are to be made by the awardee.

75 Current due date is May 23, 2016. Due to the complex RFP and the PB‐ approach we kindly request to extend the due date by 30 days.

See solicitation for the proposal due date.

76 CLINs of services include a pump and treat (P&T) system to be monitored and sampled. Does this requirement refer to the existing P&T system?

Please refer to the solicitation.

It is our understanding that the authorities have approved that when the adsorption wall system is in place the P&T system will no longer have to be monitored and sampled. Can you confirm our understanding?

Please refer to the solicitation.

Assuming that the installation of the adsorption wall system will be completed and the system accepted within the Base Year, sampling and monitoring of the existing P&T system will not be required during the option years. Which P&T system is addressed in Option year CLINs?

The same P&T system.

PWS states that the remediation system, which includes a P&T system, is owned by LGA. Do we have to assume any cost to be payed to LGA for getting access to the installations to fulfill monitoring and sampling requirements during base year?

Transfer of rented remediation systems is common place. All costs associated with the installation and operation of the adsorption wall are the responsibility of the awardee.

Can we assume that there are no other remediation requirements than expressively mentioned in the solicitation for which the Army is statutorily responsible for?

Yes.

81 If No: Please provide any communication, ordinances, permits or public acts from the authorities related to this solicitation.

N/A

The contractor is required to address any and all unforeseen environmental and regulatory issues. Can you please provide examples of such issues?

For instance, contaminant concentrations downstream from the wall continuously increase above the threshold values in the water permit.

Resolving this issue would be the responsibility of the awardee.

Plume is said to extend offsite. Final Design report states that offsite acitivities can not be handled under this contract. Can we assume that no remediation, monitoring and sampling activities and others that have to be executed outside post (offsite) to contribute to the remediation effort are not part of this contract?

Yes.

84 What does CC program stand for? Please refer to the solicitation.

85 Are there any existing orders, permits, cleanup agreements and guidance for the installation?

The currently ongoing safeguarding/cleanup P & T system has a valid water permit issued by Host Nation regulators.

86 Can you make them available to the bidders? These documents will be provided to the awardee.

87 What does PFC sand for? Perfluorinated Compounds

88 PFC study plan is to be submitted by Sep 30. 2016. See also Section L on page 112 i(7). What is the anticipated date for the award?

See revised PWS issued with Amendment 0001.

89 How many days will the USACE allow for the preparation of the initial PFC Study Plan?

See revised PWS issued with Amendment 0001.

90 IS USACE willing to accept that in a case of late award the due date for the PFC Study plan will be postponed?

See revised PWS issued with Amendment 0001.

Several Host Nation Authorities and U.S. Army institutions are nominated as project stakeholders. Is it expected that the contractor coordinates directly with all nominated stakeholders to obtain comments?

Please refer to the solicitation.

92 If No: Please specify how the contractor can be made responsible for obtaining comments with appropriate approval.

Please refer to the solicitation.

93 If Yes: Please specify how lines of communications shall be set up in view of requirements lined out in 6.15.

Please refer to the solicitation.

The contractor shall be responsible for disposal of all waste under this contract including removal and orderly disposal of contaminated soil and materials.

Yes.

95 Does USACE expect that also materials stored on the temporary storage areas to be installed under this project fall under this requirement?

Please see response to question 22.

96 Does USACE expect that also the cost for management, disposal and transport of such wastes and soil shall be included in the price?

Please see response to question 22.

Can we assume that no other wastes or soil than generated by the contractor for the construction of the adsorption wall have to be considered?

Please see response to question 22.

Under which conditions will a proposal involving the firm responsible for the Final Design and Final Report for the design as a prime, JV‐partner or Subcontractor be excluded from the solicitation for reasons of conflict of interest?

IAW FAR 9.505‐2(b)(1), a contractor that prepares, or assists in preparing, a work statement to be used in competitively acquiring a system or services ‐ ‐ or provides material leading directly, predictably, and without delay to such a work statement ‐‐ that contractor may not supply the system, major components of the system, or the services.

VOLUME I – Technical, a) Factor 1 – Experience: It says, “The Government requires that of the five (5) relevant projects submitted, all of the projects demonstrate the Offeror’s experience in doing work of a similar size [valued between $1,000,000.00 and $5,000,000.00 (€950.000,00 and €4.750.000,00)], within Germany; …etc”.

May we assume that the total value of all five (5) relevant projects should be valued between $1,000,000.00 and $5,000,000.00 (€950.000,00 and €4.750.000,00), taking into consideration that this type of work is requested relatively seldom and that average sizes of similar tasks range rather at the lower end?

The solicitation is correct.

The “Factor 4” : I‐Technical Key Personnel – Management Plan, with a maximum of four (4) pages, listed on page 107 of the solicitation, is not mentioned elsewhere (on page 111, or on page 119 EVALUATION APPROACH for example) in the solicitation.

It is requested that the solicitation be amended to either add or delete this requirement.

See revised Section L issued with Amendment 0001.

Factor 2– Technical Approach/Schedule.

The solicitation specifies on page 107 that Factor 2 ‐ Technical Approach/Schedule, should have a maximum of six (6) pages for all of the required items: Technical Approach detailing how the Offeror intends to start and complete the work described in the PWS. The Technical Approach should incorporate risk management in the form of lessons learned from previous work and an understanding of the regulatory environment. The Technical Approach shall also include, but not be limited to, a detailed proposed schedule of the work for the span of the contract including option years and also demonstrate the analytic techniques required to complete the work per German regulations.

In the Government’s opinion, will the six (6) page maximum requirement be truly sufficient to contain all of these requirements?

Yes.

102 Refers to SF 1449, which is not included in the solicitation. Please clarify. Corrected with Amendment 0001.

103 Refers to a CLINS and pricing schedule. This is not included in the solicitation.

See response to Question 27.

Final Assessment & Evaluation of the Survey and Installation of the Remediation Technique USAG Bavaria Grafenwöhr Final Report May 2015.

The AE considers the adsorption wall to be a reliable and a successful measure to reduce remediation input and which has a long term prospect of being successful. The authorities are said to currently review the Final remediation Design drawn up and submitted to them at the end of 2014.

Can we assume that no comments, requests or questions from the approving authorities have been submitted since the Final remediation Design has been submitted to the Authorities?

See response to Question 4.

105 If No: Please make available any correspondence and meeting minutes regarding the subject to the bidders.

Included with Amendment 0001.

Remediation wells had been replaced in the past. Can we assume that USACE does not expect that replacement of wells of the existing P&T remediation facility is part of the scope of this contract?

Specific technical requirements regarding the success of the adsorption wall are to be estimated by the proposers and ultimately determined by the awardee

107 Can we expect an amendment with the final version of the bidding documents, when the authorization has been granted?

See response to Questions 2 and 4.

Item: Task 2: Install the final passive remedy for Class III Yard groundwater.

(Table 1, page 10).

Does an approval document exist from Host Nation (HN) agency for the final design? If yes, please provide a copy to the bidders or inform about the content? If not, when does the government believe that the passive remedy will be approved and the information provided to the contractors?

See response to questions 2 and 4.

Item: Final remedy is considered installed at such time that the HN approves that the existing pump and treat system can be turned off and prepared for future emergency failsafe conditions, i.e. standby mode.

(Table 1, p. 10).

What are the approval criteria that HN agency will use to turn‐off the P&T system und to confirm that final remedy is installed?

The P&T system will be turned‐off after the adsorption wall is installed.

When the monitoring results are in concurrence with the threshold values in the water permit, the P&T system could be dismantled after a period.

Details must be discussed and approved by HN regulators. Please see response to number 24.

Item: Task 4: Class III Yard PFC Monitoring and Reporting (p. 10).

Can you provide additional information and background for this task requirement? What are the minimum requirements and please provide the respective documentation?

Please see response to number 34.

Item: Final Assessment and Evaluation for the Installation of the Remediation Technique USAG Bavaria (Grafenwoehr) CCGF018 LGA MAY 2015 (p. 22).

Has this document been approved by responsible HN agencies? If so can you please provide a copy to the contractors? If not, which tasks/actions have to be completed by the contractor prior to the start of mobilization?

Please see response to numbers 23 and 34. Also please note that this report does not have to be approved, only submitted to HN agencies.

Item: Tender documents (p. 1 of the above mentioned LGA document).

According to this document it seems that detailed tender documents for installing the final remedy exist? Please provide those documents to the bidders.

See response to Question 9.

Due to the current significant potential project uncertainties concerning final authority approvals and timing for the selected remedial design alternative, water permit, etc, the May public holidays in Germany, and the relatively short duration between the site visit on 11 May 2016 and the current proposal submission date of 23 May 2016, we kindly ask for a bid extension to at a minimum 13 June 2016 or until these project uncertainties are clarified.

See solicitation for the proposal due date.

During the site‐visit it was mentioned that water (supply+discharge) and energy will be supplied for “on‐post” operations to the contractor free of charge. Please confirm this statement, and provide information concerning location, technical specifications, and potential restrictions to be taken into consideration for the use of these resources?

Yes. Details concerning utilities connections will be provided to the awardee.

During the site‐visit it was mentioned that no Permit‐To‐Work system has to be considered. Please confirm or specify which other system has to be implemented?

Submit proposal based on official solicitation and any amendments.

During the site‐visit it was mentioned that the fencing “on‐post” (both storage area and construction area of “adsorption wall) will be contracted by a client to a 3rd party and is therefore not the responsibility of the contractor. Please confirm this point and provide the specifications for gates entry‐procedures, requirements, etc.

Only the Class III‐Yard area inside the fence which also serves for interim storage is supervised by security, not the installation area of the adsorption wall. Specifications will be provided to the awardee.

117 Which kind of guarantees, performance bond´s etc. have to be considered?

Bonds are not applicable as the Government does not consider this requirement Construction.

During the site‐visit it was mentioned that the “information to residents” will be communicated by the client after contract award. Please confirm and explain in which way these actions regarding such points as settlement measurements, noise protection, working hour limitations etc,.

should be considered and defined and approved by the authorities?

The USAG Bavaria will inform the Mayor of the City of Grafenwoehr before field work starts. Normal working hours should be assumed due to noise issues.

During the site‐visit it was mentioned that working at the wall‐perimeter wouldn´t be affected by other works related to the railroad logistics, e.g.

loading/unloading equipment to the trains, etc. Please confirm this important consideration or state otherwise?

Please see response to question 18.

During the site‐visit it was mentioned that a conflict of interest has to be avoided. Can you please expand on this point? Also in which way does this affect prior site incumbents like ERM, LGA, or Bilfinger Berger Spezialtiefbau GmbH (now “Implenia Spezialtiefbau GmbH”) from an active contractor/subcontractor role in the context of the tendered works for the “adsorption wall”? These companies fully participated in prior site actions and were responsible for the final design and the executed pilot test of the “adsorption wall.

See response to Question 98.

“The Contractor shall be responsible for fully executing remediation services by conducting required environmental remediation services for which the United States Department of the Army (the “Army”) is statutorily responsible; addressing any and all unforeseen environmental, explosive safety, scheduling, and regulatory issues; and, assuming contractual liability and responsibility for the achievement of the performance objectives for the Class III Yard at USAG Bavaria, located in Grafenwoehr, GERMANY identified in this Performance Work Statement (PWS), including the contaminant plume which extends offsite.”

Given this significant requirement please clarify contractor liabilities/responsibilities for the existing contaminant plume which (already) extends offsite with a passive system?

The awardee will be liable and responsible that the adsorption wall meets the requirements of the Host Nation regulator’s issued water permit. The awardee will discuss any details with the HN regulators.

There are no noise, dust and vibration restrictions mentioned/defined in the tender documents. Please confirm or state otherwise if it is desired by the client that the contractor proposes standards based on previous project experience?

That is up to the proposer.

Instead of treating the arising contaminated water (during “adsorption wall” construction) in the existing Pump and Treat system, does the client allow the option to collect the water with a vacuum tanker and dispose them in an external facility?

No.

On page 9 of the RFP it states that “During earthwork activities, the contractor shall be aware of existing UXO in the ground.” Have there been any prior UXO removal actions at the site? If so, based on clearance results is UXO Construction Support required full time on site based on results of these previous UXO actions? Also under past UXO actions were munitions constituents sampling taken and what were the results? Also if these actions occurred please provide past documentation and supporting reports.

Please see response to number 8. UXO supervision is necessary at all times during field work. All documentation regarding the adsorptive wall has been released to the proposers.

General Question – is the Government receptive to a potential alternative to the recommended remedial design? If yes would you consider expanding the Technical Approach page count beyond 6 pages as well as additional pricing information?

No.

Please provide to the bidders (in addition to the plan at p. 405, “Pre‐final Assessment and Optimization of the Remediation Technique at Class III Yard Grafenwöhr Training Area“ a draft site establishment plan with the clear indication of the interfaces with on‐going “USAG on‐post” operating and non‐operating interfaces. In this context clearly indicate as well the areas the contractor can use for transport, storage (already mentioned interim storage areas), access, energy and water (supply by client), site‐ containers, etc, inside the boundary of Class III Yard.

This documentation will be provided to the awardee.

Notes:

** The Government reserves the right not to answer further questions.