Q A's 2 Nov 09.xls
XLS spreadsheet 89 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA3002-09-R-0035
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Open
| PWS / RFP Section Reference | Comment/Question | Response | |
| 1 | PWS 1.2 and 2.2.6 | Please clarify the conflict in the required recyclable items between those set out in 1.2 and those in 2.2.6 | Paragraph 1.2 and 2.2.6 both state that materials must be recycled as directed by DoD and AF policies. The examples of cardboard, paper and metal were used as examples in para.1.2. |
| 2 | PWS 1.2.6 | Requires the implementation of programs that" should result in maximum participation of individual, family.." Why is family included if the only place we can provide MFH recyclable collection is Keesler? | The family requirement is applicable to Keesler as identified in the Appendices. |
| 3 | PWS 2.1.1 | States "solid waste dumpsters require enclosures". Will the Government be responsible for achieving this requirement. There are currently numerous locations where dumpsters are not in enclosure. This should not be a contractor requirement. | The contractor is not required to provide the enclosures. |
| 4 | PWS 2.1.1 | States "solid waste dumpsters require enclosures" .Does this also apply to recycling and composting dumpsters, Will the Government be responsible for achieving this requirement. There are currently numerous locations where dumpsters are not in enclosure. This should not be a contractor requirement. | The contractor is not required to provide the enclosures. |
| 5 | PWS 2.1.1.3 | Please explain what is meant by the first sentence of this section, unfortunately we do not understand it. | The majority of C&D waste on a base is generated from new construction projects which include demolition of existing facilities. The responsibility of removing and recycling this debris belongs to the construction contractor. This requirement is not part of the ISWM contractor's responsibility nor can it be paid for by Facility Operations (FO) funds. |
| 6 | PWS 2.1.9 | The requirement of the first sentence is cost prohibitive and onerous, unless the Government has scales that can be used on each Base. If there are no public scales between the Base and the contractors proposed parking location, the trucks will have to go out of their way to obtain the weights, sometimes many miles, thereby adding to the cost of the service. Additionally, if there is no scale on Base there are a number of locations where the closest scale is at the landfill, thereby making it impossible to get a weight before the truck gets to the landfill. | Scales are available at gate entrances and DRMS scales (except Keesler) are also available for use by the contractor at the three bases. |
| 7 | PWS 2.2.2 | The contractor shall educate all MFH and base facility occupants on the benefits of recycling and encourage the widest possible participation. The contractor shall at a minimum provide some type of educational material quarterly. An example of how this may be achieved is to publish an article in the installation(s) newspaper(s) or mail a newsletter/brochure to all MFH. As Keesler is the only Base which includes MFH why is the contractor responsible for the education and awareness or the MFH personnel at other bases? | Keesler is the only base identified in the Appendices as having MFH. There are no other MFH programs in the command and Keesler is the only installation where you are required to provide education to MFH occupants. |
| 8 | PWS 2.2.4 | We respectfully request that the timeframe for cutting the check back to the Government be extended to 5 business days. We like many businesses have a system that processes payables weekly. | PWS will be modified to allow five business days to process. |
| 9 | PWS 2.2.4.1 | The requirement that all excess revenue paid to the contractor must be used towards the recycling program, appears to us to be an illogical requirement. In preparing the cost proposal all costs that will be associated with the recycling program, and its improved results, will be built into the recycling processing and collection CLINS. In order to receive any revenue share the program revenue must exceed all of the recycling program costs (the specified CLINS). Therefore, it follows that there can be no more recycling costs to spend this excess revenues on. | The recycling operations can always be made more efficient through Resource Management to the point where there is 100% diversion of solid waste being processed for revenue generation. Additionally, the use of recycling revenue is limited by 10 USC2577. |
| 10 | PWS 2.2.4.1 | The cost of the recycling program which must be paid for by the recycling revenue before the contract can participate in the recycling revenue incentive include GFE maintenance. Will this maintenance cost be restricted to normal preventative maintenance or will it include major repairs and upgrades to the GFE? If the latter, how does that provide an incentive to the contractor? Will there be some mechanism to evaluate the GFE at the start of the contract and insure that the GFE is in proper operating condition and if not charge the maintenance and/or upgrading to the previous operator of the Government? | Maintenance cost is normal preventative maintenance and considered part of the recycling program costs. |
| 11 | PWS 2.3.1 | The contractor shall transport recyclable commodities to an off-base material recovery facility for direct sales or to the Defense Recovery Marketing System (DRMS). What materials can be transported to DRMS? If materials are transported to DRMS Is there any revenue or revenue credit to apply to the Recycling Revenue Incentive plan? | All applicable policies are stated in the AF QRP Guidance Policy. |
| 12 | PWS 2.3.2 | Disposal of non-marketable materials from processing recyclable materials at an off-base facility shall be the responsibility of the contractor. This includes any recyclable material rejected for any reason. Since the materials the contractor is required to process as recyclables is determined by the Air Force, why would the contractor be responsible for the cost of disposal should they become unmarketable due to outside changes in commodity demand and supply? Further, contamination of the materials by Base personnel will occur, on occasion, regardless of the level of education and training. The contractor should not be held responsible for loads rejected as a result of contamination by Government employees or other contractors. We respectfully request that this be made a cost reimbursable item? | The ISWM contract is a FFP contract including disposal costs. Should the contractor not be able to perform direct sales or reuse of a recycled commodity due to market conditions, and there is no reasonable expectation of revenue generation, then it is the contractor's responsibility to dispose of this material, even to include land filling. As this material was a portion of the initial tonnage, the contractor is being paid to dispose of this material. Through Resource Management, it is the contractor's responsibility to educate personnel. It is then a business decision on how to handle further contamination. |
| 13 | PWS 2.3.2 | In the event that the recycling of one or more commodities result/s in a processing fee/s (example if recyclers charge $10 per ton to accept brown glass), as it is not a disposal fee will this recycling fee be paid by the Government or reimbursed to the contractor? It is common industry practice for single stream recyclers to charge a processing fee. Any such fee needs to be a reimbursable item, to avoid it becoming a financial disincentive-incentive. | No. This circumstance should be addressed in the proposal and be part of the contractor's cost development. It is the resource manager's responsibility to make the determination in handling situations such as these. |
| 14 | PWS 2.4 | Will there be joint inspections of the GFE, prior to start up, to ascertain the baseline condition of same. The contractor can not be held responsible for GFE that is in substandard condition at the start of the contract. | Yes. |
| 15 | PWS 5.4 | The recycling center shall provide 8 hours of customer service during the hours of operation. Must the recycle center be manned for 8 hours or simply available for customers to drop off materials? | The center cannot be left unmanned, if open, for security reasons. The intent of the para is to perform processing of materials at the center for an 8 hr day. If this is not feasible due to low commodity throughput, then the center must have personnel available to accept customer throughput or for customer service questions and answers. |
| 16 | PWS 5.8 | Multi-Functional Team. The Senior Leadership requires a multi-functional team IAW AFI 63-124 be established between the Government and the contractor to ensure joint cooperation and a sound customer focus of all parties involved in the execution of this contract. Who is expected to attend on behalf of the contractor local or senior management? What is the expected frequency of these meetings? | The contractor is expected to provide decision making personnel at these meetings which must be held quarterly or as required due to performance concerns. The meetings must be held at least annually. |
| 17 | Previously Posted Questions | Will the Government's responses to previously posted questions form part of the awarded contract? If not will the Government please provide additional time to allow for any relevant questions to be re-submitted? | Previous questions have been addressed through the RFP. |
| 18 | Previously Posted Question 49 | The response to question 49 stated that single stream recycling could be proposed. Should the contractor wish to do so, as this would affect the number and type of containers to be set out, would the contractor be required to respond to the current workload requirements and submit an alternate proposal or could the base submission be based on single stream collection and the process and equipment count included in the technical proposal? | The contractor is required to meet the requirements in the PWS in their proposal and will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria in Section M. |
| 19 | Previously Posted Question 77 | The response stated that only the refuse portions of Lackland and Tyndall will be contracted out with a memorandum of understanding between 37 CES and 325 CES. How will the contractor be able to participate in the Recycling Revenue Incentive? Will 37 CES and 325 CES share in the Recycling Revenue Incentive? What if their costs exceed the projected costs? Who will be responsible for marketing and awareness? | The Lackland recycling program is not included in this solicitation. Any revenue generated at this location due to recycling will not be performed by the resource management contractor, therefore no revenue will be available to share with the contractor. The contractor will have no responsibility other than meeting solid waste diversion goals at Lackland. The Tyndall recycling program is still under review for inclusion, but will not be proposed upon until FY13 and the individual requirements will be provided in the task order solicitation. |
| 20 | Previously Posted Question 77 | The response stated that Lackland is to be utilized for processing items at their discretion. In the event that the Lackland installations are used to process items from other facilities how would this affect the Recycling Revenue Incentive from a cost and/or revenue standpoint? | In the event Lackland accepts items from other facilities, it will be the contractor's responsibility to establish an agreement with that facility. Lackland AFB recycling will be considered a commercial processing center. |
| 21 | SF 1449 | The offer due date is approx. 30 days after the solicitation was posted, with an even shorter time frame for submission of the Past Performance section. . The last weeks of September and the first weeks of October are always the busiest for us dealing with contract administration issues like renewals, last minute changes to scope of work that require pricing submittals, wage adjustments etc. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the period between the issuance of the RFP and the submission date be at a minimum 60 days | No. |
| 22 | RFP 52.216.22 and 52.216.1 | 52.216-22 States (a) This is an indefinite-quantity contract for the supplies or services specified, and effective for the period stated, in the Schedule. While 52.216-1 states, The Government contemplates award of a Firm Fixed Price contract resulting from this solicitation. Please clarify this apparent conflict. | The government intends to awards an indefinite-quantity contract to up to five offerors. We anticipate the award of up to 13 individual Firm Fixed Price task orders for the 13 bases. The 13 bases is the indefinite quantity. There is no guarantee we will make an award other than the minimum task order amount. |
| 23 | RFP 2.2.2.5 and 3.3 | Please confirm that the container price list at Attachment 3 should be included in both the Technical and Price Proposals. | Submit the container price list as part of your Price proposal. It will be utilized for both the price and the technical evaluation. |
| 24 | RFP 2.2.2.5 and 3.3 | Please explain the purpose of the container price list at Attachment 3? How will it be used by the Government and how does it figure into the evaluation process? | The container price list will be evaluated for price reasonableness and utilized to price unscheduled collections and disposals. |
| 25 | RFP 2.2.2.5 and 3.3 | Is it the Governments intent that the sum of the unit price and quantity, provided in the container price list at Attachment 3 equal the respective CLIN Total as provided in the Attachment 3 Schedule B? | No. There are other intangibles associated with solid waste collection and disposal. However, it is an indication of the relationship between proposed cost and proposed methodology. |
| 26 | RFP 2.2.3.5 | 2.2.3.5 states, The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive management plan to mobilize and implement resources at all 13 bases. This plan includes mobilization, staffing equipment capacity and management. It must also include number of personnel, methods of acquiring equipment, etc. within the estimated timelines. The Government did not provide final and accurate PWS data, workload estimates etc in the solicitation for any basses other than the first three. Neither has the Government organized site visits to the remaining 10 basses, even though this acquisition has been under development for over a year. We do not believe that an acceptable response to this technical criteria can be prepared without either of these things. We respectfully request that site visits for all bases be organized prior to submission deadline and data be provided in order to allow bidders to evaluate the required resources at each base, or that evaluation requirement be deleted from the initial technical submission. | There is sufficient workload data on all bases to make a reasonable management plan for performing at all bases. We are not asking for costs or exact data, but a comprehensive management plan based on the information available. |
| 27 | RFP 3.6 | Please confirm that this criteria only applies to financial capability as it relates to the requirements for Sheppard, Keesler and Goodfellow? If this is not the case please provide detailed PWS Data for the remaining basses so we can ascertain equipment needs and provide these estimates to our financiers. | This criteria applies to all 13 bases. |
| 28 | RFP Section F | The RFP Section F states that the anticipated FY11 Task Orders will be- Randolph, Lackland, Fort Sam Houston, & Luke and that Randolph, Lackland & Fort Sam Houston = 1 Task Order. It is also stated that the Base Period will be 1 Oct 2010 through 30 Sep 2011(Includes 30 day mobilization). In light of the amount of equipment that will be required for this Task Order we respectfully request that the period between the issuance of the Task Order and the start date be a minimum of 60 days. | This will be considered on future task orders, but it is currently 30 days. |
| 29 | RFP Section F and PWS 2.1.2 | The RFP Section F states that the anticipated award of Task Orders for FY2010 will be for Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler with the Base Period 1April 2010 through 30 Sep 2010 (Includes 30 day mobilization). The PWS item 2.1.2 states that Keesler AFB is the only AETC base or Army Post with non-privatized housing, which is scheduled for privatization by the end of FY10. Thus it would appear that should this Task Order be awarded to a Contractor , the successful contractor would be required to purchase the equipment and hire the personnel to perform the work for a period of 7 months following which the MFH portion of the work would be deleted from the Task Order. This requirement will result in higher costs to the Government as the equipment cost will only be able to be depreciated over 7 months, also start up costs for this portion of the work will be incurred and will need to be recouped in a 7 month period rather that a 5 year period. This requirement will cause enormous difficulties in recruiting qualified employees who will be unlikely to pursue this employment opportunity knowing that the positions will be eliminated in less than a year. We respectfully request that the MFH portion of the Task Order be removed from the Initial Task Order Requirements. | Housing privatization is an AF mandate. The loss of MFH collection is an inevitable consequence. Keesler AFB MFH will be privatized. The requirement exists to still collect their refuse and recycling until this occurs. |
| 30 | Appendix F - AF Solid Waste Diversion and Qualified Recycling (QRP) Policy | QRP Business Plan. The installation QRP must create and maintain a business plan that addresses QRP management, facilities, equipment and services, record keeping and auditing, market analysis, economic alternatives and the fiscal plan. We request that copies of the most recent QRP plans for each of the bases involved in the current RFQ be provided to the bidders. | GDF, KEE Fradt QRP Plans will be posted, existing SFHP plan will be posted. Other plans still unreleasable/under development. |
| 31 | General | Due to the short time frame that we been allowed between the posting of the solicitation and the deadline for submitting questions and the number of documents that need to be reviewed, we request that additional time be allowed for questions so that we can complete our detailed review of the workload data provided. | Please see FedBizOpps for update on solicitation extension. |
| 32 | Page 127 of 141 VOL III 4.2 | It is unclear how many Past Performance Questionnaires can be submitted by a Vendor/JV -- page 131 of 141 says no more than (8) total, no more than (2) surveys per contract. Does this mean no more than (2) pages for up to (8) questionnaires or a combination thereof, not to exceed (16) total pages? The Questionnaire itself, Attachment #4 is (4) pages long. Please clarify, thank you as PP is integrate to this contract | Offerors shall completely fill out Sections A and B only on the Past and Present Performance Questionnaire (See Attachment 4) for no more than eight (8) of the most relevant contracts (2 pages per contract). Not to exceed 16 pages total. The Questionnaire is to be filled out by the contracting agency, not the contractor. the contractor is only to fill out sections A and B and is limited to two pages per contract, not to exceed 8 contract references. |
| 33 | Page 127 of 141 VOL III 4.1 | Is this no more than (5) total surveys, emails, supporting documentation, or (5) total pages total for these types of submissions? | The page limit is not to exceed 5 pages total all inclusive of surveys, emails, etc. |
| 34 | PWS Page 7 of 21 2.1.1.5 | Do we have estimated tonnage of Ash Collection at the (3) installations | There is no ash collection performed at any AETC bases unless the contractor proposes the use of an incinerator, which will require open air permits. |
| 35 | PWS Page 7 of 21 2.1.2 | KAFB Privatized Housing. Do we bid KAFB as if Privatized Housing does not occur in a particular year, i.e. cost the CLIN and if privatization occurs respective of a certain year, then that CLIN cost is removed from our cost the year that takes affect and each ensuing option? (KAFB privatization in 2010) CLINS 0004 70006, & options) | Bid based on Keesler privatizing in Oct 2010. |
| 36 | PWS Page 7 of 21 2.1.2 & 2.1.2.3 | What is the post privatization status of CLIN 0005 (MFH Yard Waste) & 0007 (Bulk Item Pick Up MFH), are they going to be removed, based on privatization or will these remain in effect? Based on Question 4 above, how do we price this for KAFB) NOTE: This is particularly significant based on Paragraph 2.2.4.1 (page 11 of 21) which states that Recycling Revenue Reimbursements will come from CLINS 0003 through 0011, of which CLINS 0005 thru 0007 are not available at two bases and is being privatized in 2010 at the remaining base. | These CLINS or PWS references will no longer be applicable after privatization. |
| 37 | PWS Page 7 of 21 2.1.2 | COMMENT: Please understand that, Mobilization/start up costs will reflect (for KAFB) the MSW and Curbside Recycling Containers, which will not be utilized after (projected) the Base Year) | Correct |
| 38 | PWS Page 9 of 21 2.1.9 | Weighing: Is it permissible to have a Tare Weight (Base Line) of a Specific Collection Vehicle: Verified by the QAE, so that empty vehicle each morning does not requiring weighing, and after collection ONLY on the designed Base Route, is weighed at the Landfill. This negates the "weigh-in" at Installations, such as KAFB, that do not have scales on base, and would facilitate support. | Weigh in is required to validate that truck is empty. |
| 39 | PWS Page 10 of 21 2.2.3 | In respect to 2.1.1.3 C&D Waste that is NOT currently part of this contract, could we at least plan to explore/plan Deconstruction metrics and/or compliance metrics to accurately capture the overall Solid Waste Diversion. Specifically, conduct a study during the base year, to see if any data/tonnage is not being legitimately reported in terms of our overall goal of meeting the USAF requirement in one year? | This data will not be included in the 40% SW diversion data but overall figures will be reported. No govt funds will be utilized to support this investigation. |
| 40 | Table A3-6 Add Workload | REF KAFB Sand Hill Landing (160) homes, how do we price this, do we price the requirement? i.e. of occupied homes price or the CLIN as servicing all 160 homes? This has very significant bearing on our overall price evaluation? | The ISWM contractor will be required to service all occupied homes. Workload data reflects current occupancy which is not expected to increase dramatically. |
| 41 | Table A3-6 Add Workload | MFH under Construction at Falcon Park (KAFB-1025 units. How do we price the requirement? i.e. of occupied homes or price the CLIN as servicing all 1025 homes? This has very significant bearing on our overall price evaluation? | The ISWM contractor will be required to service all occupied homes. |
| 42 | Appendix A Table B-1-1 | Could we clarify the KAFB requirement of (5) 30 CY roll offs staged at the Landfill? The QTY requirement is (2) 30 CY roll offs on base this is more than twice the requirement staged at the landfill. | This is the existing condition. The contractor proposal is intended to address these situations. |
| 43 | Appendix A Table B-1-2 | KAFB Recycling Containers, same as question 10 and 11 above, how do we price these as per the respective CLIN? | The ISWM contractor will be required to service all occupied homes. |
| 44 | Appendix C Table C | Please confirm this table is for Sheppard AFB as it is labeled Goodfellow, we assume this is an administrative error | Sheppard table is mislabeled as Goodfellow. File names and associated workloads are correct. |
| 45 | Appendix A Table B | KAFB Frequencies. As a starting point for cost analysis, could we get the frequencies of service for each container by type to establish a baseline? Both Sheppard and Goodfellow have the container frequencies depicted in this detail. We would be forced to make an assumption with KAFB, and this is crucial especially given the 60 day analysis period for recommending reductions to the COR NOTE: Both Goodfellow and Sheppard have Weekend requirements, which generally equate to overtime labor rates. | Frequencies added to workload data |
| 46 | General | Please post the sign in list | Please provide the purpose for obtaining this list |
| 47 | Solicitation due 10/13 yet full info not posted until 9/21-too short | RFP posted 11 Sep 09. Two week extension granted. | |
| 48 | Are separate plans required for each of Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler or 1 general plan | No, it is not intended for you to submit separate plans for each base. An approach which will be used for all three three bases and a cost for each separate base. | |
| 49 | 2.2.3.5 | Are separate plans required for each of the thirtenn bases | No |
| 50 | Why are there CLINs for MFH in option years 2,3 & 4. Are they to be filled in? | The CLINs are included in event that MFH privatization is delayed. They are not to be filled in. | |
| 51 | Appendix C, Keesler | What size are the 511 recycling/refuse containers. | Blue - 17 gallon, Brown - 95 gallon |
| 52 | What is 20 CF in the recycling section | 20 cubic feet | |
| 53 | Can the contractor leave equipment in the yard | Yes. | |
| 54 | Can equipment be relocated from one base to the other | Yes. However, requires account transfers from the involved bases and commander approval. | |
| 55 | Special arrangements- need specific workload data | All special requirements contained in Workload Data or MOAs in Tech Library. | |
| 56 | Section L 1.5.2.3 | states 1.5.2.3 Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch. |
1) Are you using the terms pitch and point interchangeably?
2) Can you please provide examples of acceptable type styles?
| 3) Does this size requirement apply to tables and graphics as well? If not, can you please provide the font size requirement for tables and graphics? | 1) Yes 2) Courier, Arial, Times New Roman 3)Yes. | |||
| 57 | Section L 2.2.3.4 | states “A plan for tracking and reporting disposal and recycling tonnages and associated diversion metrics. This plan must include reporting methodology and a sample report as defined in the Performance Plan.” Does this refer to the Performance Objective Metric Report referenced in PWS 2.5 or is the Performance Plan the sum total of information provided in Volume 1, Technical Proposal? If the Performance Plan is contractor generated then is a sample report using contractor format acceptable? | The PO Metric report is the requirement and the performance plan mirrors these report requests. The performance plan is not contractor generated. | |
| 58 | CLIN 0015 - Sheppard, Keesler, Goodfellow | Is the landfill cost a pass-though cost? Is MFH disposal a pass thru cost as well? | No to both. Landfill cost is a firm fixed price. | |
| 59 | Sheppard App A Table B1-2, B1-3, B1-5 | Are the 45 GAL, 350 GAL, 30 and 44 GAL and 20 CF Containers GFE? We were told at the site visit that they were, but they are not listed on the GFE. | Yes, they are GFE and all listed in the workload requirements. | |
| 60 | Attachment 3, Container Price | In the schedule and unscheduled pickups, there is not a 20 CY section. Please advise. | Container price list will be modified to include 20 CY containers. | |
| 61 | Recycle Center/Office Goodfellow/Sheppard/Keesler | Will the contractor be responsible for the following: Electricity, Water, Sewer, Phone, Internet Bills? | E, W, S are govt paid utilities. Please clarify phone usage. Only official calls in support of the program are allowed. Internet bills are the contractor's cost and must conform to AF COM regulations. | |
| 62 | Attachment 3 Schedule B ; CLIN 0001-7001 (RFP) | In reagrds to Attachment 3, Schedule B, there is a Base Year and 4 Option years for the contract. In the RFP, there are CLINS for one base year and 6 Option Yers. Would you please clarify which is correct? | Each task order is a B + 4 option years. The entire program is spread over seven years, therefore the entire program is a B + 6 option years. | |
| 63 | Sheppard App A Table A-3, A 3-1 | In regard to existing refuse and recycling conditions, Lines 21-24, and 26. Do these numbers (tonnage from recycled products) count torward the contractors diversion %? We will be responsible for obtaining this data or will it be our responsibility to obtain it from DRMS, DRMO, etc? | Please see AF QRP Guidance. Numbers count for diversion for pallets, e-cartridges. Batteries are considered hazardous waste and are not included in MSW data. Any material turned in to DRMS can be easily tracked by coordinating with the agency. | |
| 64 | Sheppard App A Table A-3, A3-3 | Are there written agreements for the revenue split with BX? Do the BX, the Airport, and the School count torward the contractors diversion? Are these still to be honored? Do we need to provide refuse pickup? | Yes. Bx counts for diversion, airport and elementary do not. Refuse is not part of these agreements. | |
| 65 | Program Overall GFE | Will the contractor be allowed to relocate GFE? To who's cost will this be? | It can be proposed. The cost would be a government cost to relocate new equipment. | |
| 66 | GFE Keesler APP A, Table B1-2: Recycling Containers | The Recycle Containers listed in the table on lines are listed as being located at the recycle center. Is this equipment owned by the contractor? | All equipment listed in Table B1-2 is GFE. | |
| 67 | Keesler, APP A,Table A3-3 | Has a decision been made regarding the special arrangements? At the pre-proposal conference you stated that a decision would be made the day after the pre-proposal conference. Please calrify. | Yes. All arrangements will be honored and added to the workload data. | |
| 68 | APP F, Diversion and QRP Policy | After reviewing your policies under Solid waste Diversion and Recycling, the QRP states that: |
1) "Installations with greater than 100 office workers must separate high-grade paper at the source of generation, collect it separately and sell it for the purpose of recycling."
2) Installations with greater than 500 families in residence must separate used newspaper at the source of residential generation, collect it separately, and sell it for the purpose of recycling."
| Does this prohibit the contractor from collecting the high-grade paper and newspaper commingled and bringing it back to the recycle center? Does this go for all products (i.e. collect aluminum, glass, plastic all separately and not commingled)? | No. Facilities will not perform their own selling of commodities and all these items will be collected andd transferred to the recycling center by ISWM contractor. | |||
| 69 | Attachment 3 Schedule B | Can the Government resubmit Attachment 3 Schedule B to include Option Years 5 and 6? Otherwise, the Governement will not be able to see the costs for Opt 5 and 6, but only total costs for the CLINS. This will also help the contractor in adding all of teh years to submit into the pricing CLINS. | Attachment 3 - Schedule B is for the Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler Task Order Pricing only. The Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler task order are for a base period plus 4 one year option periods. They do not have Options 5 and 6. | |
| 70 | Composting - Keesler, Goodfellow, Sheppard | At the site visit we notcied an area for Keesler for compsoting. Will the contractor have access to this area? Does Goodfellow have access to the area? Are there current programs in place, if so, can the Governement submit contact information? | Yes, the Keesler area is available for the ISWM providers use. Not all bases have a composting program on base but participate in a local or regional composting program to satisfy the federal mandate of participation by the AF in a composting program. Please direct all questions to the PCO as we can not provide direct contact information. | |
| 71 | Recycle Center/Office Goodfellow/Sheppard/Keesler | Will the contractor be responsible for the office phone at the recycle center? | The office phone will be provided and paid for by the govt. Misuse of the phone is the contractor's responsibility if it occurs. | |
| 72 | Keesler AFB, Table A1 and Table A1-1 | Please provide a breakout of MSW tons between MFH refuse and Basewide refuse? | Keesler personnel working on obtaining information from incumbant refuse service provider. | |
| 73 | Keesler AFB Table B1-1 | Are the 95 gallon MFH carts GFE or is the contractor required to provide these for the limited period of service? | GFE | |
| 74 | Keesler AFB Table B1-1 | Weekly Pick ups (all), please provide this information seperately for MFH and Basewide refuse services | This information was not available due to lost data during the A76 conversion. We will request data again. | |
| 75 | Keesler AFB Table B1-1 | Refuse containers and locations please provide container size, number and service frequency by location, similar to that provided for Sheppard AFB | Keesler personnel working on obtaining information from incumbant refuse service provider. | |
| 76 | Keesler AFB Table B1-1 | Residential street cans, please provide historic service frequencies | Historical data not relevant | |
| 77 | Keesler AFB Table B1-2 | Are the containers shown as being at the recycle area considered spare containers | They are all GFE with additional containers being purchased still. | |
| 78 | Keesler AFB Table B1-3 | Recycling Paper Pick Up, please provide the quantity and number of containers at each location. | See new Tech Library exhibit for data. | |
| 79 | Goodfellow AFB Appendix A | Currently is the only recyclables collection provided at Goodfellow the cardboard containers identified in table B1-4? If not please provide container locations, size and service frequency | As observed in the site visists, recycling is being performed by many base entities. Only the scrap metal containers in the CE area apply. | |
| 80 | Goodfellow AFB Appendix A | If only cardboard is collected at Goodfellow (see above) then are the other volumes of glass and paper derived from the drop off site? | Yes, The glass dumpsters are located in the recycling center yard near bldg 516, and the various paper products are placed inside open-top containers inside bldg 516. The recycling area for glass and paper product drop-off is open 24-hrs per day. It should be noted that there are also two cardboard dumpsters located in the recycling center yard near bldg 516 (both are accounted for in the Table B1-4) | |
| 81 | PWS 2.1.9 | The stated purpose for weighing trucks before entering the base is to insure no other waste is mixed with AF instalation waste. Would a roll off truck without a container, as it obviously containes no waste be exempt for the reqirement to weigh prior to entering the base? | Yes. The empty truck weight must be known to validate final tonnage disposed. | |
| 82 | PWS 2.2.4.1 and 2.2.9.1 | 2.2.9.1 States that the contractor may procure (purchase) and install additional equipment to more efficiently process recyclable materials at the contractors cost. 2.2.4.1 States that all excess revenue paid to the contractor must be used for the cost of processing recyclables. Would this include the costs associated with renting, leasing and or purchasing additional equipment? | Yes | |
| 83 | Keesler AETC ISWMP | Could you provide C & D recycable sourcing for page 45 (C-2) so that we might be able to obtain the same total C & D diversion rate as the previous contractor? | Table C-2 is GFE. Please rephrase. | |
| 84 | Keesler MFH | Does the Governement have tonnage reports for the MFH MSW? | Information has been updated on Workoad Appendix | |
| 85 | Keesler App A; Table B1-1 | What are the 150 4 CY containers for? If you add that to the 128 8 CY also stated in the table, the dumpster total is 278. Keesler_AETC_ISWMP_Draft_May09 states that there are only 134 solid waste dumpsters on base. Please explain. | There are only no 4CY containers. There are 126-130 8CY containers. This will be changed in the workload data. The original data provided was inaccurate. | |
| 86 | RFP 2.2.3.3 | Could you please clarify what is being requested as unfortunately we do not what you are looking for. | This RFP reference is to illustrate the measures a service provider has in place to ensure reports are not altered to reflect different tonnages, diversion amounts or any data to ensure it is accurate when submitted and that submitted forms cannot be altered in any way after submittal. Also, that this data is not shared and is protected from all other service providers. | |
| 87 | RFP 2.2.3.5 | In order to completely respond to this section we respectfully request that we be allowed a site visit or at least be provided with the QRP business plans for the remaining 10 bases.. Without these we are having difficulty providing an adequate staffing and equipment plan. | The business plans which are available have been posted. They are currently being developed by Westin Corp as the majority of AETC QRPs did not have an existing business plan. A detailed staffing and equipment plan is not required to satisfy 2.2.3.5, rather a general approach as to what basic methodology is employed to make manpower and acquisition decisions. Workload data for all bases was posted to include all recycling GFE, tonnages and container data. | |
| 88 | RFP 2.2.3.4 | Please clarify what is the Performance Plan. We can find no definition or reference to this anywhere else in the solicitation. | The performance plan is an internal document to the government which mirrors the job objectives and required reports in the PWS. We will post the plan. | |
| 89 | Schedule B, 3 Sept 09, CLIN 0010, Unscheduled Items Pick-up and |
Special Events
| (PWS 2.1.1.2, 5.0) (Cost Reimbursable) *Portion or all may be identified as recycling costs. | Please confirm that the actual unscheduled services provided in the attachment #3, Container Prices, will be used to compensate for these services regardless of the NTE amount? | This CLIN is also an unscheduled requirement. This cost CLIN can be modified to reflect actual cost. |
| 90 | Schedule B, 3 Sept 09, CLIN 0011, Construction and Demolition Debris |
Pick-up (PWS 2.1.1.3, 2.5, 5.0) (Cost Reimbursable)
| * Portion or all may be identified as recycling costs. | Please confirm that the actual unscheduled services provided in the attachment #3, Container Prices, will be used to compensate for these services regardless of the NTE amount? If a contractor provides 30 each Roll Off services, which line item should be used to recover his operating expenses for those services, including disposal cost for those services? | This CLIN is also an unscheduled requirement. This cost CLIN can be modified to reflect actual cost. | ||
| 91 | Attachment 3, Container Price List | Do we provide the total quantity in column B and the detailed assignment to clins in column E? | CONS-Pricers | |
| 92 | Attachment 3, Container Price List | Do we need to provide pricing for all container sizes regardless of our initial proposed container sizes and quantities, or just for the size and quantities of those initially proposed in our proposal? In other words, do you want pricing in place for situations where changes in container sizes may be proposed any time during the project year with a zero quantity to start? | All possible unit costs should be included in the event different container sizes are utilized throughout the contract. | |
| 93 | Section L | How do we submit past performance for key personnel and how will this be evaluated? | CONS | |
| 94 | Section L | Do cover pages and table of contents pages count against the page limit for each volume? | CONS | |
| 95 | Section L, para. 1.4 | Will electronic submission of proposals be allowed? | CONS | |
| 96 | Appendix D, AF LOS, Integrated Solid Waste Management Standards Notes: | |||
| 1. Landfill tipping fees: Dedicated Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to pass cost thru with no mark-ups, Attachment 3, Schedule B, Clin X015, all years, and PWS 2.3 | These references seem to be contradictory. If disposal will be a flat rate per month, FFP fee with no adjustments for volume/tonnages per month, why does Appendix D reference a pass through with no mark ups? | The AF LOS standards currently call for a pass through cost, ie, the contractor gets paid for every ton disposed. We are waiving this requirement to provide an incentive to the contractor in the form of a Fixed price. It is a built in incentive to the contractor for diverting more solid waste. | ||
| 97 | PWS 1.3., 2.1.6, 2.2.8 | Can you please explain how the government proposes to cooperate with the contractor to help promote, monitor, enforce, and possibly penalize/discipline, or utilize its authority to to assist the contractor's proposed effort to constantly improve recycling participation? We are concerned about those who will not comply with proposed and accepted procedures for recycling. We understand that ongoing educational and training programs will be required, along with several other planned efforts, but we are curious about the consequences for those who do not comply once building users are trained and educated. A better understanding of the government’s plan will help us determine the probability of success after we put our planned recycling program in place. | This program is supported by AETC/CC. The bases will be mandated to recycle and cooperate with the contractor. Penalties will be levied by each base commander. The COR will be the contractor's voice in addressing facilities which are not complying with the requirements. The COR will document this activity to ensure poor perfomance is not levied on the contractor as a result of base personnel not participating, but it must be supported by contractor training and awareness. It is part of the contractor's requirement to motivate this participation and to make it easier for the base personnel to recycle. | |
| 98 | Copy of Attachment 3 - Container Price List 8 Oct 09 | We are not quite sure what the purpose of this document is. Could the Government please explian how this will be used as an evaluation tool for it does not reflect the actual cost accurately? Also, having to enter whole numbers into the "Unit Cost" greatly skews the actual total "per pick-up". Can the Government please resubmit the format to not include this feature? | Part 1- This list will be utilized for establishing cost of unscheduled pick ups and will be used to determine reasonableness of proposal costs. (If 200 8CY containers are utilized for collection and disposal, then MSW collection/disposal cost CLIN should reflect similar costs) | |
| 99 | None of the refuse containers are listed under the GFE. However after reviewing the workload data at each installation it indicates that they are furnished by the government but nothing actually states that they are GFE. Are they GFE? | All dumpsters are Contractor furnished. Other containers are GFE. | ||
| 100 | Schedule B, 3 Sept 09, CLIN 0010, Unscheduled Items Pick-up and |
Special Events
| (PWS 2.1.1.2, 5.0) (Cost Reimbursable) *Portion or all may be identified as recycling costs. | Will the actual unscheduled services provided in the attachment #3, Container Prices, be used to compensate for these services regardless of the NTE amount? | This CLIN is also an unscheduled requirement. This cost CLIN can be modified to reflect actual cost. |
| 101 | Schedule B, 3 Sept 09, CLIN 0011, Construction and Demolition Debris |
Pick-up (PWS 2.1.1.3, 2.5, 5.0) (Cost Reimbursable)
| * Portion or all may be identified as recycling costs. | Will the actual unscheduled services provided in the attachment #3, Container Prices, be used to compensate for these services regardless of the NTE amount? If a contractor provides 30 each Roll Off services, which line item should be used to recover his operating expenses for those services, including disposal cost for those services? | This CLIN is also an unscheduled requirement. This cost CLIN can be modified to reflect actual cost. | ||
| 102 | Attachment 3, Container Price List | Do we provide the total quantity in per size column B and the detailed assignment to clins in column E? | CONS- Repeat Q | |
| 103 | Attachment 3, Container Price List | Can you please provide more details for the actual intent of the container price list? What costs should this quote include? Is it our quote for the cost for each container size proposed? | The container price list will be evaluated for price reasonableness and utilized to price unscheduled collections and disposals. | |
| 104 | Appendix D, AF LOS, Integrated Solid Waste Management Standards Notes: | |||
| 1. Landfill tipping fees: Dedicated Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to pass cost thru with no mark-ups, Attachment 3, Schedule B, Clin X015, all years, and PWS 2.3 | These references seem to be contradictory. If disposal will be a flat rate per month, FFP fee with no adjustments for volume/tonnages per month, why does Appendix D reference a pass through with no mark ups? | The AF LOS standards currently call for a pass through cost, ie, the contractor gets paid for every ton disposed. We are waiving this requirement to provide an incentive to the contractor in the form of a Fixed price. It is a built in incentive to the contractor for diverting more solid waste. | ||
| 105 | PWS 1.3., 2.1.6, 2.2.8 | Can you please provide any details on how the government may propose to utilize its authority in order to help enforce recycling participation by base employees and military personnel? | AETC/CC will issue policy letters to base commanders stating that recycling is mandatory. All base personnel are to comply with new contract requirements. Disciplinary action will be determined by base commanders. | |
| 106 | Appendix A, Table B1-1, Keesler AFB | This information appears to be incorrect. There are no 4-CY refuse containers. The reference to 4-CY may be GF tippers used by the recycling center. | Workload data changed to reflect zero 4 CY containers. There are 30 4 CY recycling containers | |
| 107 | Appendix A, Table B1-1-1, Keesler AFB | This information appears to be incorrect. This list should be referenced to Main Base Common Cans, not Residential Street cans. We currently provide service to all 132 each of these on M-W-F, and 23 each on Tu-Th. There are several new parks, etc. in the newly developed MFH areas that we also currently service. | Workload data changed to reflect Common Cans | |
| 108 | Appendix A, Table A1, Keesler AFB | The Estimated Workload Date appears to be incorrect, according to our records. The MSW number reported does account for MFH tonnages. | Workload data changed to reflect FY09 totals | |
| 109 | Appendix A, Table A1, Estimated Workload Data, Sheppard AFB | The total of MSW including Food waste is 4,050 tons per year. The total recycled products listed amounts to 597 tons per year. The total of both amounts to about 4,647 tons per year. Actual recycling diversion appears to be 597/4,647, or about 12.8%. This seems to contradict the recycling diversion amount reported in the Solid Waste Diversion Report. Please explain. | The diversion reported by the bases has been reported inaccurately. The bases included many items which were not eligible for categorization as reyclable materials nor were weights reported accurately. The solid waste diversion reports were provided for use in uinderstanding the commodities being processed; however, the expectation of the PWS is for the resource manager to provide consistent data reporting utilizing accurate metrics. | |
| 110 | RFP Section M, Paragrapn 2.2.1, Subfactor 1, Mobilization Approach (Goodfellow, Sheppard, and Keesler) & RFP Section F, Delivery Information, FY 10 Task Orders | RFP Section M, Paragraph 2.2.1, Subfactor 1, Mobilization Approach (Goodfellow, Sheppard, and Keesler) states the proposal "ensures a seamless transition of full performance 30 days after start of contract." In other contracts, "Start Date" relates to the date the new contractor reaches Full Operating Capability and assumes responsibility for performing all services. This is preceded by a transition period which bridges the gap between the contract award date and contract start date. RFP Section F, Delivery Orders states "Base Period 1 April 2010 through 30 Sept 2010 (Does not include 30 day mobilization). Please confirm that for this contract AETC is anticipating making a contract award on or about 1 March 2010 with the new contractor reaching Full Operating Capability and assuming full responsibility for all contract tasks on 1 April 2010. | The intent is for mobilization to begin 1 Mar 10 and full performance 1 Apr 10. | |
| 111 | Attachment 3, Container Price List | Could you please clarify the instructions for completing Attachment 3, Container Price List - Scheduled Pick Ups? Based upon the instructions provided in 2.2.2.5, it is clear that the actual number of containers utilized is to be insterted into the Quantity column (e.g. 138 8CY at Keesler AFB). The form then asks for a unit price. The unit price for each container would vary depending upon its service frequency, obviously the cost to service a container once a week is far less than one that requires seven day per week service (as some do at Goodfellow). Could you please clarify what assumed service frequency we should use to arrive at the unit price? Please also confirm whether the unit price should be a monthly or annual price. If it is the latter, then the base period pricing would be for 6 months? | The service provider will be picking up every day but at different locations. There should not be a different cost for picking up one location at a different frequency than another. Final unit cost is based on amount of pickups/collections made in total for the specified size container. This is an annual cost. | |
| 112 | ||||
| 113 | ||||
| 114 | ||||
| 115 | ||||
| 116 | ||||
| 117 | ||||
| 118 | ||||
| 119 | ||||
| 120 | ||||
| 121 | ||||
| 122 | ||||
| 123 | ||||
| 124 | ||||
| 125 | ||||
| 126 | ||||
| 127 | ||||
| 128 | ||||
| 129 | ||||
| 130 | ||||
| 131 | ||||
| 132 | ||||
| 133 | ||||
| 134 | ||||
| 135 | ||||
| 136 | ||||
| 137 | ||||
| 138 | ||||
| 139 | ||||
| 140 | ||||
| 141 | ||||
| 142 | ||||
| 143 | ||||
| 144 | ||||
| 145 | ||||
| 146 | ||||
| 147 | ||||
| 148 | ||||
| 149 | ||||
| 150 | ||||
| 151 | ||||
| 152 | ||||
| 153 | ||||
| 154 | ||||
| 155 | ||||
| 156 | ||||
| 157 | ||||
| 158 | ||||
| 159 | ||||
| 160 | ||||
| 161 | ||||
| 162 | ||||
| 163 | ||||
| 164 | ||||
| 165 | ||||
| 166 | ||||
| 167 | ||||
| 168 | ||||
| 169 | ||||
| 170 | ||||
| 171 | ||||
| 172 | ||||
| 173 | ||||
| 174 | ||||
| 175 | ||||
| 176 | ||||
| 177 | ||||
| 178 | ||||
| 179 | ||||
| 180 | ||||
| 181 | ||||
| 182 | ||||
| 183 | ||||
| 184 | ||||
| 185 | ||||
| 186 | ||||
| 187 | ||||
| 188 | ||||
| 189 | ||||
| 190 | ||||
| 191 | ||||
| 192 | ||||
| 193 | ||||
| 194 | ||||
| 195 | ||||
| 196 | ||||
| 197 | ||||
| 198 | ||||
| 199 | ||||
| 200 | ||||
| 201 | ||||
| 202 | ||||
| 203 | ||||
| 204 | ||||
| 205 | ||||
| 206 | ||||
| 207 | ||||
| 208 | ||||
| 209 | ||||
| 210 | ||||
| 211 | ||||
| 212 | ||||
| 213 | ||||
| 214 | ||||
| 215 | ||||
| 216 | ||||
| 217 | ||||
| 218 | ||||
| 219 | ||||
| 220 | ||||
| 221 | ||||
| 222 | ||||
| 223 | ||||
| 224 | ||||
| 225 | ||||
| 226 | ||||
| 227 | ||||
| 228 | ||||
| 229 | ||||
| 230 | ||||
| 231 | ||||
| 232 | ||||
| 233 | ||||
| 234 | ||||
| 235 | ||||
| 236 | ||||
| 237 | ||||
| 238 | ||||
| 239 | ||||
| 240 | ||||
| 241 | ||||
| 242 | ||||
| 243 | ||||
| 244 | ||||
| 245 | ||||
| 246 | ||||
| 247 | ||||
| 248 | ||||
| 249 | ||||
| 250 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .