Additonal Questions and Answers Refuse.pdf

03 June 2026

Questions and Answers 2

1. For bulk liquid wastes would it be possible to change the pricing structure from a standardised flat monthly fee to a per-load pricing model? Given the varying waste streams and collection frequencies across locations, the current flat monthly charge does not adequately accommodate service delivery complexity. We propose providing a detailed, load-based pricing breakdown. This approach is transparent and representative of the service that is delivered, without requiring us to build in volume fluctuations and risk into the price, which would not deliver best value for the USVF.

- While a per-load model could potentially save money, it would create a significant administrative burden. We would need to track, verify, and process tip tickets for every load before approving an invoice, requiring a separate Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) for each waste stream, which would be difficult to manage. This approach would also lead to fluctuating monthly invoices, making it harder for the government to forecast and allocate funds. Therefore, the pricing will remain as a flat monthly fee.

2. Do you have any specification of what is expected for the collection of each waste type?

For example, for road gullys what is the expectation of the service requirement, e.g. just emptying or jetter required?

- PWS Section 1.5.3 requires the contractor to "clean, empty, wash, transport, and/or remove/dispose of liquid waste... from... gullies." While the term "jetting" is not specifically used, the requirement to "wash" the gullies, in addition to emptying them, is explicitly stated.

3. Please can you provide annual volumes for the previous 5 years? Without knowing fluctuations in volumes year to year we can not estimate expected variance if a flat monthly price is to be provided.

-Appendix A contains the best available one-year data. Vendors should use this information, along with their professional expertise, to prepare their pricing.

4. For all sites / wastes with no schedule, this needs to be provided ASAP. For the avoidance of doubt, this relates to the following sites / wastes;

- The information has been updated in Appendix B as requested.

Site Waste Description Result RAF Fairford Grease Traps Added to Appendix B RAF Fairford Oil/Water Interceptors Added to Appendix B RAF Fairford Septic Tanks (on site disposal via own sewage facility) Added to Appendix B

RAF Fairford Septic Tanks (off site disposal) Added to Appendix B

RAF Fairford Cess pits/sludge pits/canine waste

Added to Appendix B

RAF Fairford Pumping Stations-Sewage Added to Appendix B Blenheim Crescent Road Gullies Added to appendix B Blenheim Crescent Grease Traps Removed Blenheim Crescent Oil/Water Interceptors Removed Blenheim Crescent Septic Tanks Removed Blenheim Crescent Cess Pits Removed RAF Croughton Grease Traps Added to Appendix B RAF Croughton Oil/Water Interceptors Added to Appendix B RAF Croughton Septic Tanks Added to Appendix B RAF Croughton Cess Pits Added to Appendix B RAF Welford Grease Traps Added to Appendix B RAF Welford Oil/water interceptors Added to Appendix B RAF Welford Septic tanks (on site disposal) Added to Appendix B RAF Welford Septic tanks (off site disposal) Added to Appendix B RAF Welford Cess pits/sludge pits/canine waste Added to Appendix B

5. Please can the actual storage tank or pit capacity be specified for all collection locations and tank sizes across all waste collection sites, rather than just the size of the tanker performing the collection?

- Appendix B contains the best available information, which includes estimated sizes. We do not have access to the exact storage capacities for all locations.

6. Please confirm how many “emergency collections” historically take place annually for all liquid wastes, and any other waste category under the contract. Without knowing this it is not possible to include such services under a monthly flat rate as we do not know the level of risk

-Between RAF Alconbury, Molesworth, Blenheim Crescent, and Det 6 the average is twice a year for emergency pickups. For RAF Mildenhall, it has been up to 15 occasions in one year (increased amount due to electrical faults at lift stations). RAF Lakenheath has an average of five times a year. The bases of RAF Croughton, Fairford, and Welford have not yet had an emergency callout.

7. Emergency response within 4 hours for bulk liquid wastes, does this require a tanker on site within 4 hours, or simply acknowledgement of the request within 4 hours?

- The requirement is that a tanker must be on-site within 4 hours of the request.

8. Is the AFFF waste PFAS containing?

- There is PFAS remaining in the systems but we are unsure of the exact level of PFAS, however, any trace amount of PFAS must be incinerated.

9. The pricing line for Aqueous Film Forming Foam Collection and Disposal (PWS 1.5.1.6) outlines just 150,000 ltrs per annum at RAF Mildenhall whereas appendix A shows 200,000 ltrs per annum at both Mildenhall and Lakenheath. Does this need to be corrected on the sheet to account for both sites and the increased tonnage?

-This has been updated to 150,000 as that is the correct amount.

10. What is the EWC Code for Sewage Plant works? Is the waste effluent from Sewage treatment plant?

- The EWC code is 19 08 05, which is listed in Appendix B.

11. Is the volume and schedule for the hanger waste correct. Data suggests 150,000 Ltrs per annum collected weekly meaning only 2884 Ltrs collected per week ? Could you also clarify what hanger waste actually is?

- The 150,000 ltrs is just the catch pits so not a large sum of waste. Hanger Waste is a mix of oil and fuel.

12. What is the pumping station waste from RAF Fairford?

- Pumping station waste is sewage that is removed as needed.