FY 25 ISWM All Questions and Answers 25 Nov 2024.pdf

FY 25 ISWM Site Visit Q& A

1. Can you provide a copy of the sign in sheet for the Mandatory site visit NOV 13, 2024?

No. The sign in sheet is not necessary for creating or submitting a proposal for Solicitation

FA446025Q0003.

2. Will contractors not attending the Mandatory site visit be allowed to present a bid, and therefore be awarded if lower than those who attended?

The Government has no control over proposal submittals. Proposals received by the due date will be evaluated as outlined in FAR 52.212-2 in the solicitation.

3. The schedule calls for 20-, 30-, and 40-yard Rolloff containers. But the permanent schedule only shows 20 and 40s placed. Are the 30yd RO permanent or on call?

They would be on-call. If we had a situation where a permanent 20 yard is not big enough to handle the waste generated a 30 yard could be made permanent.

4. The contractor is responsible for the first 2000.00 of repairs to the Government owned equipment. Is this 2000 reimbursable?

No. The $2K in repairs would cover normal wear and tear items such as hoses, wear guides, oil/filters etc. Above 2K is a major repair for which the Government would be responsible.

5. Would this 2000.00 in repairs be expected more than once a year?

No.

6. Considering the age and condition of the current recycling equipment, will the government be planning to replace certain pieces of equipment during the awarded option periods?

As equipment reaches the end of its life cycle or if the Government have program changes, we program replacement equipment in our annual budgets with justification. Example: the Government recently replaced an aluminum can bailer and a shredder due to age and program changes in unclassified shredding.

7. Who pays for the tires on the government owned recycle trailers?

Government.

8. Who makes repairs to the government owned containers and trailers?

Contractor as part of maintenance to the containers and equipment.

9. Following the bid opening on September 4 for LRAFB FY25 ISWM work (Solicitation

FA446024Q0011), the Air Force indicated that the Government decided to resolicit the work “due to ambiguities identified in the Performance Work Statement.” Approximately 10 weeks passed between then and this re-solicitation. What were the specific ambiguities identified in solicitation FA446024Q0011, which caused the need for a re-solicitation (FA446025Q0003)?

Solicitation FA446025Q0003 replaced FA446024Q0011 and should be considered separately from solicitation FA446024Q0011 or any previous solicitations concerning the Integrated Solid Waste Management requirement at Little Rock Air Force Base. Changes to the FA446025Q0003 Performance Work Statement (PWS) are highlighted in YELLOW in the PWS. Please see attachment named “Highlighted ISWM PWS”.

10. How does the current PWS for solicitation FA446025Q0003 materially differ from the previous

PWS for solicitation FA446024Q0011?

See answer to Question 9.

11. Were any of these specific ambiguities identified in the prior PWS (FA446024Q0011) not answered in the 58 questions contained in the Q&A posted prior to the bid due date.

12. The PWS for solicitation FA446024Q0011, that the Government determined as ambiguous, closely mirrored the 2019 PWS for this work that was awarded to Lane Services, LLC. How does this PWS for solicitation FA446025Q0003 materially differ from the 2019 PWS awarded to Lane Services, LLC.?

13. Was there a low bidder and/or apparent awardee determined for the previous solicitation

FA446024Q0011? If yes, what was the name of the firm?

A response to Question 13 is not necessary for creating or submitting a proposal for Solicitation

FA446025Q0003.

14. When using technology (Adobe Acrobat Comparison Tool) to compare the PWS for the current requirement, FA446025Q0003, and the previous requirement, FA446024Q0011, the only notable (not material) change was a clarification for the exact color scheme the base desires. Will the Government define any material changes missed by the Adobe Acrobat Comparison Tool, as simply noting a color scheme (which was clarified in the Q&A) would not constitute a material change or ambiguity?

15. The Government established due date for the current solicitation, FA446025Q0003, is December

9, 2024, with a contract start date of 01/01/2025. It took the Government 4 weeks to establish the low bidder for solicitation FA446024Q0011 (due 08/05/2024). Why is the Government providing a shorter timeline for the start of this contract when they have proven they are not able to determine an awardee in such a short period of time?

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract prior to 1 January 2025, with a Period of Performance start date of 1 January 2025.

16. What information did the Government use to determine if the timeline given for the start date of this solicitation (FA446025Q0003) was realistic and reasonable as required by the FAR?

See answer to Question 15.

17. Given the timeline from the due date of the solicitation to the contract start date is unrealistic and unreasonable, this solicitation (FA446025Q0003) resembles a sole source contract that only favors the incumbent instead of an actual competitive HUBZone set aside solicitation. Will the Government provide a more reasonable and realistic timeline for this requirement? The industry standard would be at least 6 weeks from the AWARD date. This is the standard that BILLION- DOLLAR companies, such as Waste Management and Republic Services utilize. Based on this industry standard, it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect a small HUBZone business (outside of the incumbent Lane Services, LLC.) to meet the Governments current timeline.

18. GFL Environmental Front-end trucks have been regularly observed working at LRAFB and GFL had attendees at the site visit for both the previous solicitation (FA446024Q0011) and the current solicitation (FA446025Q0003). Does GFL currently provide the Front-end load collection service for LRAFB?

Yes, as a sub-contractor.

19. How many total front-end load containers exist on this contract including the Government and contractor furnished containers?

There are 305 total containers including Government recycling dumpsters, park cans, contractor-furnished containers, and roll offs.

20. How many total roll-off containers exist on this contract including the Government and contractor furnished containers?

See answer to Question 19.

21. Why was the second site visit for the current solicitation that was initially “needed”, but then cancelled?

The second site visit was canceled at the discretion of the Government.

22. Would the Government consider a February 1, 2025, start date as opposed to the current January

1, 2025, start date that is in the middle of the holiday season and is itself a Federal Government Holiday?

23. As seen at the site visit, is the government requiring the current contractor to use the Front End

Load container delivery truck that is intended for delivering containers and not servicing them (hence the name), to haul one container at a time back to the recycling center for processing, which is incredibly inefficient, costly, and more damaging to the environment or, is the incumbent following that process on their own accord?

The current setup is a best practice for LRAFB service setup and for maintaining a drive-thru customer service lane which is utilized often by retirees and older individuals.

24. Would a new contractor be allowed to update the antiquated process of utilizing a Front End Load container delivery truck to haul one container at a time back to the recycling center for processing as opposed to current industry standards or is that one container at a time on a delivery truck which causes additional noise and environmental pollution and roadway hazards on LRAFB a government requirement for this contract?

The Government does not tell a contractor how to process or haul recycling material; however, the method described above would require the contractor to provide additional labor or additional equipment to load the material into a machine to be bailed and would shut down drive-thru operations which is a requirement of the PWS.