B44877 Questions Part II 11.22.24.docx

24-532EPA-LAND5-B-44877 Questions and Answers

1. Does the IEPA intend that the “surveyed materials” for the needs assessment include all the subcategories across the diversion quadrants (approx. 60) from Table 4 of the MMAC or that the contractor select from those material subcategories in order to meet the desired outcomes?

Response: The IEPA intends for all surveyed materials to be included as well as subcategories.

2. What is the intended use of the volume by material type request alongside the tonnage by material type?

Response: Landfills utilize both volume and tonnage measurement units.

3. When do you expect an addendum to be released?

Response: IEPA strives to get questions and answers posted as quickly as possible.

4. We are very appreciative of the extension offered in the recent addendum. Will IEPA consider moving the deadline to the week after Thanksgiving? Many contributors to the proposal are already off, children are home from school, etc. Moving to the following week (Wednesday or Thursday) can honor and respect that time while also allowing for responsive, responsible proposals.

Response: The opening date for the RFP has been extended to 12/2/24 at 1:00pm.

5. Can IEPA confirm the total available budget for the project?

Response: The IEPA has received a grant of $733,568.00 to fund this needs assessment.

6. Are subcontractors required to fill out any portion of the vendor disclosure forms (forms a – or, if they are registered with the IPG, they would fill out forms b)?

Response: If the anticipated value to the subcontractor exceeds $100,000 and the subcontractor is not registered in the Illinois Procurement Gateway (IPG), then the Vendor Disclosure form will need to be completed and submitted with the proposal. If the anticipated value to the subcontractor exceeds $100,000 and the subcontractor is registered in IPG, the subcontractor may submit the Active Registered Vendor Disclosure form instead of the Vendor Disclosure form.

7. Will IEPA consider monthly invoicing? The pricing schedule in the revised RFP allows only two invoices in the first year of the project (one at inception and then one a year later when the draft needs assessment is completed). Given the large size of this project and the need for subcontractors (which may be smaller companies), two invoices over a 12-month period is challenging.

Response: The Vendor may submit invoices for the following milestones:

8. Is the SWIFR grant amount intended to cover all costs of the study?

Response: Yes, the anticipation is for the SWIFR grant to cover all costs. However, state funds may available, if necessary.

9. Is a field-based waste characterization study (e.g., sorting of waste at landfills) a required lement of the scope of work?”

Response: If the intent of the study can be fulfilled without a field-based waste characteristic study, then a waste characterization study is not required. The contractor is to propose how they will meet the needs of the study.

10. Is the SWIFR grant amount ($733,568) intended to fund just the waste characterization study, or is that amount intended to cover all the work in the RFP (including scope elements addressing Public Act 103-0383)?

Response: The grant is anticipated to cover costs of any work within the RFP. However, state funds may be available, if necessary.

11. Does IEPA have additional funding (beyond the SWIFR grant) for completion of the Statewide Needs Assessment?

Response: There may be state funds made available in addition to the grant.

12. Is IEPA funding the subject RFP (Materials Management Needs Assessment) with SWIFR grant funds?

Response: Yes, the IEPA is funding the subject RFP with SWIFR grant funds.

13. How is IEPA intending to meet the waste characterization work plan and waste characterization project narrative as described in the referenced SWIFR background documents?

Response: If the intent of the study can be fulfilled without a field-based waste characteristic study, then a waste characterization study is not required.

14. What is the source of funding and budget available for the Materials Management Needs Assessment outside of the SWIFR grant?

Response: The IEPA has received a grant of $733,568.00 to fund this needs assessment. There may be state funds made available in addition to the grant.

15. Its our understanding that any proposed subcontractors also need to complete the financial disclosure. Much of this information is highly sensitive and is not shared amongst firms. If the State requires subcontractors to complete the financial disclosure, can the State provide a secure way for subcontractors to submit without going through the prime to maintain confidentiality?

Response: If there is concern about the information being highly sensitive, then the subcontractor disclosures can be sent to 1021 N. Grand Ave. E. Springfield, IL. 62702. Please include “Attn: Andrew Shackelford B-44877” on the envelope. Please ensure that no pricing is included in the disclosure documents. The disclosures must be received by the agency prior to the bid opening date and time listed in BidBuy.

16. Can the State provide any flexibility with the payment terms? Three payments over the course of a long project could create an unnecessary financial burden on the chosen firm.

Response: See answer to Question #7.

17. Scoring for price: In our experience when price is such a small percentage of the scoring, as is the case for this project where only 382 (~17%) of the total 2,290 points is for price, the procuring entity has a budget allocated that it wishes respondents to fall under. Please can you indicate what the total budget is for this project? Are we to assume that the value of the SWIFR grant is the cap since the SWIFR Project Narrative document states that the IEPA does not have funds to support a solid waste management program?

Response: The IEPA has received a grant of $733,568.00 to fund this needs assessment. There may be state funds made available in addition to the grant.

18. Payment schedule: Thank you for providing some clarity on the potential payment schedule. We would request that the proposed payment schedule be reconsidered based on the following:

· The proposed payment schedule unfairly disadvantages small businesses who are likely to be able to carry such high levels of working capital.

· The proposed payment schedule unfairly disadvantages subcontractors, who may be WBD businesses, as the prime consultant will be unable to pay subcontractors until it has been paid.

We request that the payment schedule be modified based on the percentage completed or monthly milestones either proposed at the point of submission or agreed prior to contract signature.

Response: See answer to Question #7.

19. Waste Characterization: Clarification Q2, 13 and Q39 seek clarity from IEPA on the need for physical sorting as part of the waste characterization. IEPAs response to these questions appears to be that the contractor should put forward its recommendation as to how it will meet the requirement of the RFP which includes the requirement to meet the requirements of the SWIFR grant.

Page 1 Section 1 of the SWIFR Project narrative states that there is a need to carry out a waste characterization study and Pages 2 and 3 talk to the fact the last waste characterization study was completed in 2008, and this document is referred to. Can IEPA re-confirm whether it or the EPA require a waste sort/physical waste characterization study to be part of the proposed scope of work?

We can accept a combination of the two options or when it is effective, the vendor utilize waste sort/physical or when effective, by determinations by data.

Response: A physical sorting effort is not necessarily required as part of the waste characterization study. Rather than dictating that a physical sorting effort must absolutely be performed, we are leaving it to the vendors to determine whether sufficient/reliable information exists that can be utilized for some or all of the waste characterization. To the extent such information exists, a physical sorting effort may not be needed.

20. Key dates and deliverables:

The key dates within the RFP for delivering on the needs assessment and waste characterization study are as follows:

· March 4, 2025: Kick off meeting

· March 5,2026: Draft reeds assessment issued to IEPA The key dates within the SWIFR Project Narrative are as follows:

· Contractor drafts plan to conduct study: Fourth quarter 2025

· Feedback and comments to proposed plan: Fourth quarter 2025

· Conduct and finalize statewide waste characterization study: Third quarter 2026: The output from this study is that the contractor will conduct a study to provide a report that refreshes the states waste characterization data.

The dates in the SWIFR Project Narrative appear to be later than that in the RFP please can you confirm that the dates in the RFP for the completion of the waste characterization and issue of draft report as being March 5, 2026.

Response: The contractor should have completed the assessment and provide a draft report to the Agency by March 5, 2026.

21. Can IEPA detail the difference in these two prompts, and what exactly is being requested?

F.2.3.1. Please submit documentation on the methodology used by the Offeror to determine quantities (in weight and volume) of surveyed materials generated by counties and the State annually in a project similar to the Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment.

F.2.3.2. Please provide the methodology proposed to determine quantities (in weight and volume) of surveyed materials generated by counties and the State annually for the Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment.

Response: The first asks about methodologies the Offeror has used in similar previous projects. The second asks about the methodology the Offeror proposes to use on this project.

22. Based on the following q&a, we are still unclear on what exactly the state is wanting. Does the state want a new waste characterization study or use existing data from previous studies?

Is a by-county waste characterization expected as part of this contract? If not, will a waste characterization be conducted prior to the kick-off of this project to ensure the most relevant and new data is available?

Response: Existing data can be used if it is still relevant and appropriate. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to determine if conducting a county-by-county waste characterization as part of the project is necessary. The Offeror is expected to use accurate data. See response to Question 19.

23. Certain elements of the characterization study are by county, for example Number Two (2) in Section A.2. (Quantity by volume in cubic yards and weight in tons of municipal solid waste annually generated in each county in Illinois). As a Request for Proposal, this solicitation is, in part, a request for how bidders would conduct a study that would provide results representative of the entire state.

With respect to the SWIFR grant, is a field-based waste characterization study (e.g., sorting of waste at landfills) a required element of the scope of work?

See response to Question 19.

image1.jpeg image2.jpeg