36C25626Q0640 - RMW and Sharps Management Questions

1. Who is the incumbent contractor?

NEIE Medical Waste Services, LLC

2. What is the current obligations number? What was the total obligation expended for the contract?

Not Available.

3. CLIN 0001 is for Reusable sharps container NTE 1500.

a. How many current sharps containers are located at each location?

A: 1500 containers split between the 2 main facilities and 8 CBOC’s, The majority will be at the 2 main facilities.

b. Are reusable sharps located at all 8 locations or just the first 2 locations in little rock and N. little rock?

A: All locations

c. What is the current shipment levels of sharps containers per month?

A:

Main Little Rock

Collection Month

Cart Weight

Gross Weight

Containers

Net Weight Containers

Total Lbs.

Plastic Diverted

March, 2026 4,810.1 2,475.6 1,599.2 876.4

N. Little Rock Sharps

Collection Month

Cart Weight

Gross Weight

Containers

Net Weight Containers

Total Lbs.

Plastic Diverted

March, 2026 745.9 499.6 266.2 233.4

d. Is 1500 containers a 60-month total?

A: 12-month total

e. What is the recourse if the estimated number (1500) is exceeded?

A: Contract Mod will have to be approved prior to exceeding number. The Contracting officer will need to approve if the estimated number (1500) is to be exceeded.

f. What is the current size of the reusable containers?

A: They range from 3.7 gallons to 17 gallons

g. Does the facility have multiple sizes of sharps containers?

Yes

h. Does the facility use a mix of reusable and non-reusable containers? If so, then would the non-reusable be managed under CLIN 0002?

No

i. If non-reusable containers are used, who provides these containers?

N/A

4. CLIN 0002 is for per pound rate of RMW waste, what is the current type of container being used?

a. What is the current frequency of service?

A: Daily, Monday – Friday for Little Rock and North Little Rock Facility

CBOC’s are monthly or as needed.

b. What is the current number of locations that RMW locations are stored in?

A: 10

5. What monthly reporting of generations, and other metrics is required, we do not see that requirement in the PWS, we may have missed it.

A: Monthly Star report identifying weight processed

6. What is the previous 24 months generation quantities shipped and invoiced for the two CLIN lines respectively?

A: Not provided

7. Will any Chemotherapy or non-regulated pharma be included in this requirement or just

RWM?

No

8. PWS section 3 item D. sates “All collected waste other than contents of Sharps containers must be incinerated.” Does the VA understand that this is more expensive, and there are other more economical and effective methods approved by the ARDEQ and ADH?

A: Other methods approved by the ARDEQ and ADH are acceptable.

9. RMW Weight Report Are you able to provide the last 12 months of RMW weight data for both the Little Rock and North Little Rock facilities? Stericycle should be able to generate this information through a STARS report.

A: Provided

10. Sharps Volume The quantity of 1,500 sharps that was referenced—does this represent the monthly volume collected, or the number of containers installed across all locations?

A: Number of installed containers through all facilities

11. Additionally, Mr. Davidson mentioned an interest in purchasing sharps containers to store additional equipment in the VA’s warehouse. Could you please provide further clarification on this request, and advise whether this is included in or separate from the 1,500 monthly quantity?

A: Not needed at this time

12. On the SF 1449 in Block 8 it shows a due date for bid submissions as 5/27/2026T 3:00 p.m. CDT but Block 20 Shows a bid submission date of 5/22/2026 at 3:00 p.m.

CDT. Please advise which bid submission date is accurate.

The requirement will be extended until 06/10/2026 PM CST.

13. The PWS states that all waste other than Sharps must be incinerated on Page 9 of 38 Line-Item D. This is not a current requirement of this contract and would result in significantly higher costs for the Government. Other than wastes that must be incinerated such as Trace Chemo and Pathological Waste would the Government consider keeping all other Non-Hazardous RMW as autoclave disposal versus incineration.

A: Auto Clave is acceptable

14. The PWS does not identify specific Reusable Sharps container counts and sizes for each facility. The site walk did not identify this information either. Will the Government be providing this information for each Little Rock VAMC location.

A: The sizes vary throughout hospital.

15. Page 8 Letter C states that the vendor shall provide appropriate storage for RMW and Trace Chemo Waste. Will the vendor need to provide a trailer or storage container and if so what type and size will be required and permissible.

A: No, trailer or storage container will be needed. Currently space is provided on site for daily storage

16. Will the vendor need to provide a trailer or storage container for each CBOC.

A: No

17. Page 7 Letter B – Is the Government seeking onsite technician services at the CBOC locations to exchange containers.

A: No

18. Will the CBOC facilities maintain Reusable Sharps containers.

A: Yes

19. Will the Government provide a copy of the sign in sheet from the site walk that took place.

A: Yes

20. Multiple Offers and Alternate Proposals (Reference: Section E.1 FAR 52.212-1(e) and E.9 52.212-2) The solicitation states that offerors may submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms, conditions, or commercial services, and that the Government will evaluate offers comparatively to determine which provides the best value. Will the Government accept and comparatively evaluate an alternate technical proposal that offers a different technical approach or method of performance, provided it meets or exceeds all stated performance outcomes, regulatory requirements, and safety standards of the Performance Work Statement?

Offerors may submit an alternate proposal; however, any alternate must be submitted as a separate, complete offer, not as a revised section, excerpt, or partial volume. Each alternate proposal will be treated as an independent offer and will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.212‑2.

Offerors are reminded that any additional offer must fully comply with all submission instructions outlined in FAR 52.212‑1. Failure to provide all required information for each separate offer may result in the submission not being evaluated and being eliminated from competition.

21. Alternative Treatment Methods (Reference: PWS paragraphs 3.C and 3.D) PWS paragraphs 3.C and 3.D require that all collected waste other than sharps container contents “must be incinerated.” Will the Government consider and accept, as part of an alternate proposal, the use of other treatment methods that are fully compliant with all applicable federal, Arkansas Department of Health (ADH), and Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) regulations and that achieve equivalent or superior pathogen destruction and final disposal outcomes?

A: Other methods approved by the ARDEQ and ADH are acceptable.

22. Value Engineering and Operational Integration (Reference: FAR 52.248-1 Value Engineering and E.9 52.212-2 comparative evaluation) Will the Government consider and comparatively evaluate alternate proposals that offer operational efficiencies, process improvements, integration with existing VA capabilities or infrastructure, or other value-engineering approaches that deliver measurable cost savings, improved sustainability, reduced transportation risk, or enhanced performance, provided they meet or exceed all stated requirements?

A: Yes, if this meets the standards and requirements of the PWS

23. Alternative Sharps Container Systems (Reference: PWS paragraphs 3.A and 3.B) The PWS requires the Contractor to provide, install, exchange, and manage rigid puncture-resistant vertical-drop reusable sharps containers with specific cleaning and spare inventory requirements. Will the Government consider proposals that utilize compliant disposable (single-use) sharps containers — either exclusively or in designated areas — provided all OSHA, FDA, NIOSH, and state requirements are met and overall safety and performance standards are achieved or exceeded?

A: Yes, if this meets the standards and requirements of the PWS

24. Revised or Alternative Pricing Structures (Reference: B.2 Price/Cost Schedule and PWS paragraph 11) For an alternate proposal that delivers measurable cost savings or other additional benefits to the Government, may the offeror submit a revised or alternative pricing schedule (including modified CLINs or value-engineering adjustments) that reflects the different method of performance while still allowing fair and reasonable price evaluation?

Offerors may submit an alternate proposal; however, any alternate must be submitted as a separate, complete offer, not as a revised section, excerpt, or partial volume. Each alternate proposal will be treated as an independent offer and will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.212‑2.

Offerors are reminded that any additional offer must fully comply with all submission instructions outlined in FAR 52.212‑1. Failure to provide all required information for each separate offer may result in the submission not being evaluated and being eliminated from competition.

25. Evaluation of Additional Benefits (Reference: E.9 52.212-2 and comparative evaluation language) When evaluating alternate proposals under the comparative/best-value process, what specific types of “additional benefits” (such as reduced long-term costs, improved sustainability, reduced transportation risk, or enhanced operational control) will be considered favorably, and how should an offeror quantify and present those benefits in the quote?

Please be advised that the determination of what constitutes “additional benefits” will be made by the Government based on the specific needs and priorities of the requirement.

Factors such as long‑term value, operational considerations, risk reduction, sustainability, or other enhancements may be taken into account; however, the Station will ultimately assess which benefits provide the most value in relation to the Government’s objectives.

Offerors may describe and quantify any benefits they believe strengthen their proposal;

however, the Government will determine their relevance and value during the evaluation process.

26. Amendment or Formal Guidance on Alternate Proposals (Reference: All of the above) If responses to these questions materially affect an offeror’s ability to submit a competitive alternate proposal that provides additional value to the Government, will the Contracting Officer issue an amendment or formal written guidance confirming the acceptability of such approaches and any required format or content for submission? If so, will the quote due date be extended to allow adequate time for preparation?

The Contracting Officer will issue an amendment if any response results in a change to the terms, conditions, or requirements of the solicitation. Additionally, the quote due date will only be extended if the Government determines that additional time is necessary for offerors to prepare and submit their quotes in light of those changes. The Contractor can request a time extension and state why they need an extension if it does not fall under the listed conditions. The Government will make a determination based on the reasons.

27. Historical RMW Volumes, Trends, and Projections (Reference: PWS 2.E and B.2) Will the Government provide the most recent 24–36 months of actual data for total pounds (or containers) of regulated medical waste and sharps generated at the Little Rock campus, North Little Rock campus, and each CBOC? Additionally, has the Government observed any measurable increase or decrease in volumes during the current contract period, and does it anticipate any significant changes over the next five years due to expansions, new clinical programs, or other factors?

A: Provided in the STAR report

28. Preference for Integrated or Single-Contractor Waste Stream Management (Reference: E.9 52.212-2 comparative evaluation) When evaluating proposals, does the Government place value on offerors who can provide integrated waste management services across multiple waste streams (for example, solid waste combined with regulated medical waste collection and the transport of treated waste), thereby reducing the number of separate contractors or subcontractors required and improving coordination with Environmental Management staff?

Proposals will be evaluated strictly in accordance with the requirements identified in this solicitation. The evaluation will not consider capabilities, benefits, or factors associated with any other contracts or services outside the scope of this requirement. Only the elements defined within this specific solicitation will be assessed during the evaluation process.