Questions and Answers. A1: The budget from the Commerce Street Plume Remedial Design Oversight grant from EPA is below:

Transcription

1 Questions and Answers 1. What is the dollar amount of the EPA grant? A1: The budget from the Commerce Street Plume Remedial Design Oversight grant from EPA is below: 2. It sounds as if you already conducted a pre notification that we may not have been aware of? Can you please clarify if you have prequalified bidders or if that is not required? If there is an on line registration that we need to complete with VTDEC in order to receive these notices, please advise. A. VT DEC has not prequalified bidders for this RFP and any firms that deem themselves qualified to perform the scope of services in RFP are welcome to bid. We post all our bid opportunities on the Vermont Bid System: and tag with keyword environmental conservation. Firms can register for alerts by keyword to receive notification when a new RFP is posted by VT DEC.

2 3. Can VTDEC please provide results for the ongoing pilot test of EISB? A. VT DEC is still waiting to receive results from Tufts. We have been in touch with Tufts and stressed the need for these data to be released. We may also contact SERDP (the Dept. of Defense program funding this study) to request access. 4. Will VTDEC coordinate property access? A. Yes. VT DEC will work with the consultants regarding property access issues. 5. Will VTDEC manage waste disposal for the project? A. No. Waste disposal will be handled by the contractor. If a contained in letter is necessary, VT DEC will coordinate this. 6. Has a laboratory been specified for the analytical testing? A. No. 7. Should we assume operation under the 2010 Nobis QAPP and any other existing Site control documents? A. No. 8. Are payment terms to be lump sum following completion of each subtask outlined in the RFP? A. Yes. payments will be made after satisfactory completion of each deliverable 9. Are there standard review timeframes required by VTDEC and the EPA for each of the work plans and final reports specified in the RFP that should be included in the project schedule? A. No. VT DEC will work to provide the most expedient review possible. If VT DEC or EPA review times hold up the project, VT DEC will allow changes to the schedule to submit documents. 10. How does the VTDEC want the redacted copy provided bound or unbound hard copy, electronic, or both? A. Electronic. 11. Due to the proximity of the site visit and the question and response period to the Thanksgiving holiday and the due date, would the VTDEC consider extending the due date? A. Yes, VT DEC will extend the due date one week via an RFP addendum posted November 18, Proposals will now be due by 4pm EST on December 9, Anticipated award notification date

3 will now be January 20, The ROD stated contaminated groundwater at the Site will be reclassified to Class IV, with the goal of meeting Class III standards at the Class IV boundary and to return groundwater quality within the class IV area back to Class III. Does VT DEC have a target time frame in which they would like groundwater quality with in the Class IV area to return to a Class III designation? Is it consistent with the analytical model of years presented in the ROD? A. Consistent with the time frame presented in the Record of Decision. 13. Would VTDEC consider using the A/E Professional Service Agreement, Attachment C, Section 6 that was updated in 2011 by ACEC and authorities of the State of VT as opposed to the attached Standard Contract for Personal Services Template included with this opportunity? Language regarding Defense and Indemnity creates insurance risks for our firm (and we suspect others). A. If the proposals and resulting contract included engineering services, VTDEC will consider attaching the State Standard Provisions for Architect/Engineer Professional Service Agreement posted at this link: Does performing the remedial design preclude a bidder from bidding on and implementing the remedial action(s)? A. No 15. Comments made at the pre bid meeting indicated that Nobis is supporting EPA on this project? Is this correct? A. Yes. Nobis was EPA s contractor on the Remedial Investigation (RI)/Feasibility Study (FS). 16. Would it be possible for us to get the analytical database generated during the RI to use either immediately during proposal preparation, or after contract is awarded? A. It is available on the FTP site (contact Kim McKee at kimberley.mckee@vermont.gov) for instructions to access FTP). If you are referring to the data base in a format other than pdf, we can ask EPA for electronic copies of the data in other forms that Nobis/EPA may have. 17. Who will be on the Contractor selection committee? A. VT DEC Waste Management and Protection Division staff Michael B. Smith, Kimberly Caldwell, Hugo Martinez Cazon, Matthew Becker, Trish Coppolino, and Chuck Schwer. 18. Would it be possible for us to get the data collected by the Tufts/Nobis team? Particularly the other analytes listed in Tables 3 and 5 of the Research Study Workplan, Rev 1 (Nobis, September 2016) for groundwater samples? (chloride, ethane, ethane, methane, nitrate, nitrite, sulfate, sulfide, TOC, ferrous iron).

4 A. Please see answer to question #3 above. 19. Does IDW from the site require non hazardous or hazardous management? A. Possibly both, depending on the concentration of compounds in the waste. We do not expect the waste will be F002 hazardous waste. 20. Will the EPA be reviewing and providing comments to preliminary submittals (work plans, pilot study test reports, etc)? A. We will be asking EPA for their input and comments on documents but they will not be providing formal comments. 21. The RFP specifically states that remediation is spec'ed to be either an ISCO and/or IBR, but mention of other technology usage or proposal is not mentioned from what I can see. In the ROD, Section J.3.GW5 states, "Chemical reagents (e.g., H2, ozone, etc.) and/or biological stimulants (e.g, molasses, VOC consuming microbes, etc.) will be injected into the contaminated zones of the overburden aquifer to reduce the concentrations of VOCs." It goes on to state, "Of the in situ treatment options evaluated in the FS, the one that EPA believes will achieve Vermont's groundwater restoration goals in a reasonable timeframe, based on current understanding of the subsurface conditions at the Site, is a treatment train of chemical oxidation in portions of the plume where TCE concentrations exceed 50,000 ppb, followed by biological treatment where TCE concentrations are greater than 500 ppb." The technology and method of delivery that we provide would entail a different approach and would include IBR in the portions of the TCE plume where concentrations exceed 50,000 ppb and ISCR in the portions of the plume where concentrations exceed 500 ppb. So to be clear: will other methods of contaminant destruction and approaches for application beyond what is specified in the Feasibility Study be considered as part of this RFP? A. The Commerce Street Plume Feasibility Study (available on the FTP site) assessed a number of potential remedies to address the groundwater contamination at this site. Alternative GW5, In Situ Treatment followed by Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) is a preferred groundwater remedy in the FS. The FS explains how the cost estimate for GW5 was developed. This remedy as presented in the FS proposes using ISCO in areas where concentrations of TCE are above 50,000 µg/l to reduce them down to around 10,000 µg/l. The remedy proposes using ISB to lower TCE concentrations where concentrations of TCE are above 500 µg/l. This activity is to be followed by long term MNA. The active remedial activities will lower TCE concentrations to allow MNA to be effective and help prevent further groundwater plume migration. The ROD is more general than the FS and specifies that the remedy will be in situ treatment followed by MNA. The ROD does select GW5 as the groundwater remedy at the site. It does not

5 however specify in situ chemical oxidation, rather it references in situ active treatment of the groundwater plume with chemical reagents and/or followed by injection biological stimulants. The RFP was written specifying the GW5 remedy of ISCO and or ISB as these are the technologies used to develop the remedial cost estimate. The RFP directs potential proposers to propose ISCO and/or ISB. The RFP does not direct potential proposers as to what type of chemical reagents will be used or how biological activity will be stimulated. We expect the proposal to include proposed technologies that will work at this site to achieve remedial goals.