Contracting response to RFI 2 Questions.pdf

RFI 2 Questions and Answers

1. For mixed hazardous waste, it would be beneficial to obtain a breakdown of individual streams (including EWC codes, as mentioned in the documentation), to ensure you receive representative pricing that reflects each of the waste streams.

Description EWC Code Oily water from Bunds and Oil Water Separators (OWS) 13 05 07 Aircraft wash detergent water 16 10 02 Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) 16 10 01

2. It would be advantageous to receive information on what equipment is owned by the incumbent contractor and any owned equipment operated by the existing contractor teams. This will enable bidders to identify which are due to be replaced and potential risk assessments that must be carried out on owned equipment. This information will also help to ensure the correct equipment is proposed and accounted for in the submission.

The equipment owned by the incumbent would be considered proprietary information and therefore cannot be provided. Offerors are responsible for proposing their own technical solution, including the equipment needed to meet the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.

3. It would also be beneficial for HR teams to receive ELI data as part of the Tender process, however we understand this is highly confidential and would suggest it is sent directly to HR representatives for review. We would suggest you request the contact details of HR teams as part of the RFI process, to help this to take place smoothly. This information will help bidders to accurately determine the cost associated with labour provisions.

We have requested the incumbent’s HR representative’s information and are awaiting their response. For further guidance on how the TUPE process will be handled, please refer to Sections L and M.

4. Can International Catering Waste be its own separate CLIN?

Yes, the Government plans to update the PWS and Attachment 2, Offer Sheet, which will incorporate these changes.

5. Additional clarification on expectations for partial service performance during mobilization, if any, versus full operational capability at contract start may further reduce ambiguity.

The mobilization period of 60 days is provided for the follow-on contractor to prepare to meet all requirements of the PWS. During these 60 days, no service performance is required from the incoming contractor. The incumbent contractor will continue to provide full performance until the expiration of their contract. The new contractor must be at Full Operational Capability (FOC) on the contract start date of 1 May 2027.

6. The Past Performance relevancy criteria clearly communicate the Government’s expectations regarding scope, scale, and complexity. Clarification on whether relevancy thresholds (e.g., regions, FEL counts, liquid waste volumes, contract value) may be satisfied cumulatively across multiple references, as opposed to individually per contract, may assist offerors in presenting the most relevant experience.

These will be evaluated on a stand-alone basis. Offerors may not cumulatively combine multiple references to meet the relevancy standards for scope, magnitude and complexity. Each contract reference must individually meet the relevancy criteria outlined in the solicitation to be considered relevant.

7. Clarification confirming that offerors may account for anticipated cost escalation within their fixed prices for option years, as referenced in Government feedback, is helpful. Additional confirmation that pricing is required for all line items at proposal submission would further eliminate ambiguity.

You are required to propose a price for all of the line items.

8. Clarification on how “Not Applicable” responses will be considered during evaluation particularly when certain performance elements were not applicable to prior contracts may improve consistency across evaluations. The requirement for questionnaires to be submitted directly by customer references is clearly stated and understood.

Performance elements rated as 'Not Applicable' by a customer reference will be considered neutral and will not be viewed negatively for that specific element.

However, as this is a performance price tradeoff procurement, the overall relevance of an offeror's past performance is a key consideration. While a reference will not be penalized for an 'N/A' rating, such a rating also does not help demonstrate experience in that particular area. A reference that closely mirrors the scope and complexity of the current requirement will likely be considered more relevant and provide a greater level of confidence than a reference with multiple 'Not Applicable' elements.

Ultimately, the Government will assess a final past performance confidence rating based on the recent and relevant data provided by each offeror.

9. Clarification on whether the listed workload figures represent historical averages, projected estimates, maximum planning values, or blended assumptions would assist offerors in evaluating performance risk. Confirmation that these figures are estimates only and not guaranteed quantities would further support consistent interpretation among respondents.

As stated in Appendix A and in the pricing schedule, the workload figures provided are estimates. These estimates are based on historical data and are for offeror planning and pricing purposes only. They are not a guarantee of the minimum or maximum quantity of work that will be ordered under the contract.

10. Additional clarification on how temporary increases in service demand such as exercises, deployments, or special events are categorized (routine services versus over-and-above requirements) would assist offerors in planning staffing, equipment availability, and pricing assumptions.

Due to Operational Security (OPSEC), the Government cannot provide forecasts for temporary increases in service demand from exercises or special events. Therefore, offerors shall base their proposed pricing on the estimated historical workload data provided in Appendix A. This historical data is the only workload information available for pricing these requirements.

Should the actuals during contract performance significantly differ from the estimates provided for this type of work, such a situation would typically be handled through the equitable adjustment process, subject to the terms of the contract and as warranted by the Contracting Officer.

11. All site weights and tip-site tickets to be provided to the COR the next working day - Clarity required on whether hard copy or electronic format is acceptable.

This will be further clarified in the final version of the PWS at the tender phase. The Government's preferred and primary required method of submission is electronic format (e.g., scanned PDF). Hard copies may be provided on an exception basis only, such as when a disposal facility is unable to provide an electronic ticket.

12. RAF Croughton Glass Bottle Bank - Can an alternative bin or solution be provided?

At this time, alternative bins or solutions are not acceptable for this specific requirement.

13. TUPE - Supply of existing contractor and contact details to obtain relevant information for consultation.

The incumbent contractor is BIFFA Waste Ltd. Offerors are responsible for contacting the incumbent directly to obtain all necessary information required under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE). The Government will not be a party to these communications.

14. 1.5.1.2 - Sample turnaround times may vary depending on the analysis required and the facility conducting the testing.

The turnaround times stated in the Performance Work Statement represent the Government's requirement for all routine analyses. The Government recognizes that highly complex or non-standard analyses may require extended processing times.

In the event a sample requires analysis that will exceed the specified turnaround time, the contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) in writing at the earliest opportunity. This notification must include the rationale for the extended time and the laboratory's projected completion date. The Contracting Officer will review the request and provide written approval for an extension if deemed warranted.

15. Liquid Waste- As out-of-hours work is an unknown quantity, it would be difficult to factor in the additional costs without introducing significant financial risk to the bidder. We would welcome clarification on expected frequency or a mechanism to manage exceptional call-outs.

The Government acknowledges that out-of-hours call-outs are unpredictable. For offeror planning and pricing purposes, the historical data for the past 12 months across RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall combined indicates there were 10 or fewer such call-outs. It should be noted that some of these instances were extensions of regular business-hour services.

This historical information is provided for planning purposes only and does not represent a guarantee of the frequency or volume of future requirements. Offerors shall use this information to factor the cost of potential out-of-hours services into their proposed pricing.

16. Site access requirements for personnel - This section may require further clarity during the tender process.

The estimated processing time for individual base access passes is approximately 180 days.

Timelines can vary based on individual circumstances.

Until contractor personnel receive their Government-issued passes, escorted entry to all work sites will be required. The contractor shall coordinate all escort requirements with the designated

Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). Offerors should factor this into their mobilization and performance plans.

17. 'Hanger waste' at RAF Lakenheath and Feltwell, and the nature of hazardous wastes at RAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall.

Description EWC Code Oily water from Bunds and Oil Water Separators (OWS) 13 05 07 Aircraft wash detergent water 16 10 02 Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) 16 10 01

18. Tonnage data - Whilst the document confirms annual tonnage by waste stream, for the commercial (skips, ro-ro’s etc) wastes, it would be beneficial if the data could be split further by container type, with average tonnage per load/lift provided.

The Government does not track workload data at the granular level of average tonnage per container lift. The total annual tonnage data provided in the solicitation is the only historical data available.

As this is a performance-based acquisition, offerors are responsible for assessing the available information and proposing their own solution that meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.

19. For the liquid wastes-Where data is provided under the 'size' column, it appears to refer to the tanker size used. It would be more helpful to bidders if this indicated the actual size of the storage tank or pit capacity from which waste is collected. Alternatively, rather than stating "truck" in the quantity column, the storage tank size or pit capacity could be specified . It would also be beneficial to clarify whether collections can be performed by large articulated vehicles (20T) or require smaller rigid vehicles (14T) due to site access restrictions.

The figure in the 'size' column represents the estimated volume of waste to be collected per service or visit. The Government does not maintain data on the maximum physical capacity of each individual tank or pit.

Regarding vehicle access, offerors are responsible for ensuring their proposed equipment can safely access all collection points identified in the Performance Work Statement and its appendixes. The Government makes no representation as to the suitability of any specific vehicle size (e.g., articulated vs. rigid). Offerors must select equipment appropriate for the site conditions and are encouraged to assess these conditions during any scheduled site visits.

20. Site Visits - It would be beneficial if the site visit attendance could be increased to 3 people per bidder. Based on the scope of work, this would allow the appropriate subject matter experts to attend and gather the necessary operational and technical information.

Yes, we can accommodate 3 people per Contractor.

21. It would be more beneficial if the commercial wastes (such as skips, RoRo containers, etc.), the pricing sheet could be structured by:

• Location

• Waste stream

• Container type

• Average weight per lift

This would provide greater transparency and accuracy in pricing.

No. The Offer Sheet follows the Air Force Civil Engineering Center (AFCEC) template and cannot be modified. The Government's requirement is for a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) on a lump-sum basis for the services outlined in each Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN).

This FFP lump-sum approach is intentional. As this is a performance-based acquisition, it is the offeror's responsibility to assess the requirements and propose a single, all-inclusive price for a complete service. The Government is not seeking a cost breakdown by container, lift, or weight within the Offer Sheet.