Solicitation Q and A - Refuse 7 Aug 2026.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE SUSTAINMENT CENTER (AFMC)

HILL AIR FORCE BASE UTAH

Questions and Answers

Notice ID FA820126Q0026

INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR HILL AFB

Below are the questions received regarding the aforementioned solicitation that is currently active on

SAM.gov. This is currently a live document that will be updated with any and all questions received for this solicitation. The final day for email inquiries for this solicitation is 5 August 2026 at 2:00pm MDT.

Once the final question has been added to this document it will no longer be considered a live document.

Notice of this change will be stated below.

Current Document Status: Live Document as of 7 August 2026 at 11:00am MDT

Final Document: 7 August 2026

▪ Is there any incumbent/recompete or is this a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.

o This is not a brand-new project. The incumbent is Robinson Waste Services, and the award number is FA820122C0001.

▪ Missing PWS. The solicitation Section J lists the Performance Work Statement as Attachment 02, "Final ISWM HillAFB PWS Refuse FY27" dated June 23, 2026, and the evaluation factors reference it throughout, but it does not appear in the attachments posted on the SAM listing.

Could you please post or send the PWS and any appendices? We need the container inventory and collection frequencies to price the CLINs.

o It has been posted.

▪ Site visit. Will there be a site visit or pre-quote conference where offerors can view the container locations and routes?

o A Site visit has been scheduled for 29 July 2026. Please see Solicitation amendment

0001 and site visit attachments on Sam.gov for more information.

▪ Meaning of “Organic Recycle” in Table A-5. PWS Section 1.1.1.3 addresses recycling collection, PWS Section 1.2 addresses recyclable materials processing, PWS Section 1.2.1 lists recyclable materials, and PWS Section 1.2.3.1.1 refers to “Organic materials.” Appendix A, Table A-5 is titled “Organic Recycle Collection Stations & Frequency.” Please clarify the material stream intended by Table A-5. Should offerors treat these containers as single-stream recycling containers, cardboard/paper-only containers, OCC/mixed paper containers, organic material containers, or another material stream? Please confirm whether plastics, aluminum, steel, glass, food waste, and wood waste are included or excluded from this stream.

o Organic recycling references paper and cardboard (biodegradable material).

However, we have seen a variety of materials being thrown in the recycle containers, so offerors should treat these containers as single-stream commercial recycling.

Local landfills put single-stream commercial on all the recycling weight tickets.

▪ Food Waste Containers and Compactors. PWS Section 1.1.1.2 addresses food waste collection, PWS Section 1.1.7.5 identifies three self-contained food compactor units at Building 849, Building 400 Commissary, and Building 412 BX, and Appendix A, Table A-4 lists those same three scheduled permanent compactors. Appendix A, Table A-3 also identifies two 8 CY

Building 519 Dining Hall Food Waste containers. Please confirm whether the three compactors and the two Building 519 containers are the complete food waste collection requirement, and please reconcile the applicable pickup frequencies, service days, and CLIN treatment for each food waste location.

o Those are the only areas that currently have and previously had food containers, so offerors should treat these containers as the only areas. Any additional areas that might come up in the future would be addressed at that time by modification.

▪ Current Food Waste Disposal / Processing Location. PWS Section 1.1.1.2 states that the

Government reserves the right to add hauling of food waste to the food digester in Salt Lake City as an option to the food waste CLINs. PWS Section 1.3 addresses disposal. Please identify where food waste is currently disposed or processed, and confirm whether hauling to the Salt Lake City food digester is currently required, optional, or only reserved for future addition by the

Government.

o Food waste is currently disposed or processed at local landfills with other trash.

Hauling to the Salt Lake City food digester is currently only reserved for possible future addition by the Government.

▪ Current Recycling Processing Facility / MRF. PWS Section 1.2 states that recycling material must be taken off base to be sorted at a Municipal Recycle Facility. PWS Section 1.2.3 states that the Government will provide use of the base recycling area, but also permits use of a contractor-owned or third-party off-base facility if Government recyclable materials are sorted and weighed prior to commingling. PWS Section 1.3.1 also references transport of recyclable commodities to an off-base material recovery facility. Please identify the current recycling processing facility or

MRF used for this requirement, and confirm whether offerors may propose an alternate qualified

MRF or processing facility.

o Currently, the base facility is not staffed to handle our single-stream commercial loads, so an off base third party facility is used. However, there needs to be containers there that are serviced.

▪ Landfill Tipping Fees / CLIN Scope. PWS Appendix A, Table A-1 lists X018 Landfill Tipping

Fees at 4,250 tons at $52/ton. PWS Section 1.3.1 references invoicing disposal-location permits or fees to CLIN 0018, and PWS Section 1.5 requires monthly reporting of landfill tipping fees, weight tickets, diverted recyclable commodity weights, and sales proceeds. Please clarify the intended scope of the Landfill Tipping Fees CLIN. Should offerors apply landfill tipping fees only to landfill/disposal tons for MSW/refuse, or should this CLIN include food waste, C&D debris, recyclable residue, non-marketable recyclable materials, or all estimated tons shown in

Appendix A, Table A-1?

o This CLIN includes general refuse, food waste, C&D debris, recyclable residue, non-marketable recyclable materials, etc.; basically, all estimated tons shown in

Appendix A, Table A-1.

▪ MSW Container Count / Additional Container Allowance. PWS Appendix A, Table A-3 lists 468 total refuse cans for scheduled service. PWS Section 1.1.5 states that the Government reserves the right to add up to 60 rented front-loader containers sized 6 CY of type MSW, in addition to the locations listed in Appendix A, throughout the life of the contract at no additional charge. PWS

Section 1.1.7.1 also references contractor-furnished bulk refuse dumpsters, including up to 60 additional refuse containers.

o Please confirm that the 468 refuse cans listed in Appendix A, Table A-3 represent the base scheduled MSW container inventory at contract start, and that the up to 60 additional 6 CY MSW containers referenced in PWS Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7.1 are separate from, and in addition to, the 468 listed containers.

o Please also confirm whether the contractor must have the additional 60 MSW containers available at contract start, or only provide them if and when directed by the Government during the contract term.

o Correct. The 468 refuse cans listed in Appendix A, Table A-3 represent the base scheduled MSW container inventory and the number of MSW containers needed at contract start. The up to 60 additional 6 CY MSW containers referenced in PWS

Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7.1 are separate from, and in addition to, the 468 listed containers.

▪ Please provide the container inventory, collection locations, service frequencies, estimated quantities, and CLIN pricing schedule in Excel format. Although this information appears in the

PWS and solicitation, an Excel workbook would help bidders price the requirement accurately and consistently.

o Unfortunately, with time constraints and current workload an excel file cannot be accommodated at this time.

▪ Would Hill AFB consider a contract term longer than the current one-year base period plus four one-year options? Because the contractor must make a substantial investment in containers, compactors, vehicles, and supporting equipment, a longer potential term may result in more competitive pricing.

o The requiring authority has determined that 5 years is the need.

▪ PWS §1.1.7 and Appendix C state that Hill AFB will provide approximately 210 8-yard recycling containers, while the contractor must furnish the remaining refuse, recycling, compactor, and roll-off equipment. Please explain the reason for this ownership arrangement and clarify whether all

210 government-owned containers are currently serviceable and available at contract commencement.

o All 210 containers are in acceptable condition, and our reasoning is that by using existing containers, we save the USAF money.

▪ Please confirm how long the food-waste/organics program has been operating and provide historical annual tonnage, pickup counts, and service levels. Is the estimated 315 tons based on actual incumbent performance?

o The estimated 315 tons was based on recent history.

▪ Please provide additional information regarding the on-base recycling area, including the equipment provided, equipment condition, staffing expectations, operating hours, historical volumes processed onsite, commodities handled, and whether the current contractor uses the onsite area or transports recyclables directly to an off-base MRF.

o The base recycling area is a vacant structure with minimal staff by appointment with a paved area adjoining east side that has 8CY recycling containers in a U-shape.

▪ Please clarify the required painting frequency. PWS §1.1.7.2 requires all containers to be washed and painted annually, while §1.4.2.1 requires painting within the first 90 days and at least once every two years. Which requirement controls?

o It should be once a year (annually).

▪ Please provide the incumbent’s container-condition checklists or, at minimum, the actual number of containers cleaned, painted, repaired, and replaced during each of the last three contract years.

o Please see Container Condition Checklist and Container Placement excel docs attached to the solicitation.

▪ Please clarify how annual container washing, painting, signage, repair, and replacement should be priced. Are these services charged per container according to CLIN 0017?

o It would be the total you would charge for each container to be washed, painted with signage, and repaired as a monthly charge. Replacement for damage caused by contractor is by contractor expense.

▪ In the RFP it states that a map can be provided upon request. Can you provide a map of all of the placement of the containers as it states in the RFP.

o Unfortunately, due to current events and dumpsters placed in sensitive areas a base map cannot be provided to offerors but will be provided to the eventual winner.

▪ Can the start date be extended further than October? Given that over 600 dumpsters need to be provided.

o No, the start date cannot be extended. The government cannot have a lapse in service.

▪ Can you confirm how many total trucks are being used daily (average) to service this contract?

o Estimated to be as many as 3 roll off vehicles, 2 container vehicles, and 3 front load collection vehicles. Probably, a fair average of 4 trucks per day.

Site Visit Questions:

▪ Has the contract start date been revised following the extension of the bid due date to August 10, 2026? If so, what is the new anticipated start date?

o It has not been revised.

▪ Will a designated on-site staging area be provided for equipment and containers prior to delivery and deployment?

o We can provide temporary short-term (Labor Day to Veterans Day) storage to facilitate on-site staging area prior to delivery and deployment should this be needed.

▪ What is the anticipated timeframe between contract award, implementation kickoff, and full operational implementation?

o This is hard to answer but once the contract is awarded we will do our best to implement the next phases as soon as possible.

▪ Is the contractor expected to complete all container placement activities within a 30-day implementation period?

o Preferably, yes. We cannot have a break in service.

▪ Following the commencement of implementation, how many days will be allowed to complete all container stickering and labeling requirements?

o About 30 days up to Veteran’s Day at the latest. Everything should be done by then and removed from temporary storage.

▪ Can a site map or service area map identifying all container locations be provided?

o Unfortunately, due to current events and dumpsters placed in sensitive areas a base map cannot be provided to offerors but will be provided to the eventual winner.

▪ Are the service hours specified in the solicitation firm requirements, or will extended and/or after-hours access be permitted as necessary during implementation?

o Yes. The hours listed are based on base access and outside our control.

▪ Regarding the 60 additional front-load dumpsters referenced in the solicitation, are all 60 units required at contract startup, or may they be provided incrementally over the contract term (for example, approximately 12 units per year)?

o No, approximate 12 per year; likely need several of those additional ready for

October 2026 implementation. It would be incrementally throughout the life of the contract. It is for new buildings that are not listed in tables A-3 or A-5.

▪ The contractor-furnished 8-yard square-top dumpsters are not designed to accommodate lid stops.

How should these containers be configured to remain compliant with the contract specifications?

o If technically feasible, lid stops should be added to the recycling dumpsters but if not, this will not be a requirement for those types.

▪ What is the anticipated timeline between bid submission, evaluation, contract award, and notice to proceed?

o This all depends on the proposals we obtain (number, completeness, etc.)

▪ The implementation plan appears to require delivery of approximately 83 tractor-trailer loads of dumpsters. How does the agency envision this delivery and deployment process being coordinated, and are there any restrictions or preferences regarding delivery scheduling and site access?

o We can offer temporary storage space until Veteran’s Day for delivery, mobilization, and implementation efforts. First step, contracting will get DBIDS for winning contractor, our security manager will then get line badges

▪ Does the line item numbering in Section B of the solicitation control?

o Yes, the line-item numbering in section B controls but we have also updated the

PWS to match this numbering. Please see amendment 0003 and PWS dated 5 Aug

2026.

▪ Section B, CLIN 0009 references PWS 1.5. Should it also include PWS 1.1.9 and 1.3.1.

o Yes, PWS 1.1.9 and 1.3.1 have been added.

▪ Will a pricing matrix be provided for over an above services by container size?

o No, since the nature of "over and above" is subjective to the situation as they arise, we're asking vendors in this instance to essentially provide a capability statement for which sizes of bins they can provide at which cost(s).

▪ Are tipping fees reimbursed at actual invoiced cost supported by weight tickets in accordance with PWS 1.1.9, rather than paid at a fixed rate quoted by the offeror?

o We're asking vendors to let us know where they deliver collected waste/recycling within Davis and Weber counties and let us know the tonnage chart fees. If, after award, those collection sites increase/decrease their fees, that can be handled in a

REA situation, with invoices provided.

▪ PWS section 1.1.1.2 references a 6-month option period, will this be added?

o No, a 6-month option period is not being requested. The PWS has been amended to remove that wording.

▪ Will price realism and unbalanced pricing be evaluated as described in Attachment IV, paragraph

2.3 or by the section M verbiage?

o The Solicitation Amendment 0001 is the superseding language by which we will evaluate proposals. FAR 15.404 Price Analysis is what we use to compare/evaluate proposed prices.

▪ Will a quotation found unreasonable or unrealistic be removed from consideration without a technical evaluation, and will the offeror be notified?

o This is dependent upon the number of proposals received at the date of solicitation closure. If there is no competition, a competitive range would be moot.

▪ Section M of the solicitation reproduces FAR 52.212-2 with the drafting instruction still shown in brackets and with best value language, will lowest price technically acceptable method stated in

Attachment IV be added?

o No, but this is an LPTA solicitation effort.

▪ Is an independent Government estimate used in determining price reasonableness and was it developed from the prices paid under FA820122C0001?

o The methodology by which the government comes to an IGE is exhaustive and does not solely rely on the pricing of the incumbent contract. Please refer to the FAR for the methodologies by which an IGE has been developed. The figures and specifics therein will not be disclosed to industry.

▪ Will the Government account for the 73% increase in the disposal rate and the increase of estimated tonnage disclosed between the predecessor solicitation and this one when comparing a current price to prior contract prices for price reasonableness?

o We will be using fair market, current values in our price analysis.

▪ Before any price is determined to be unreasonable, the offeror will be given the opportunity to submit supporting information under Attachment IV, paragraphs 2.3.5 and 2.3.7, and will be told which line items are at issue?

o The most up to date proposal submitted by a vendor at the time of solicitation closure will be what is considered. After that close date, in a competitive environment, if the government were to give a vendor an opportunity to correct

"unreasonable price(s)", that's an unfair advantage ripe for protest.

▪ An offeror justifying an option year increase above five percent under Attachment III, paragraph

4.2.5 may rely on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index series for non-residential solid waste collection?

o The basis by which a vendor uses for >5% should be called out in a proposal.

▪ If the Government developed an independent estimate, it would identify the escalation index or rate applied to the out-year values by published series identifier?

o The government uses the standard escalation rate provided on the DoL website, subjective to the requirement.

▪ Is there no economic price adjustment clause incorporated?

o 52.222-43 is incorporated.

▪ Will the Government complete the employee class table at FAR 52.222-42 by amendment, identifying the classifications it expects to be employed under the contract?

o We are asking for vendors to call out the service labor categories that will be employed, should they win the award.

▪ Wage Determination 2015-5483 Revision 29 is the operative determination as of the closing date?

o Yes

▪ Is the Performance Work Statement dated 23 June 2026 the only one applicable to this acquisition, and the references to a 4 June 2026 version are carried over from an earlier draft?

o A new PWS dated 5 August 2026 will be uploaded and referenced.

▪ Is submission by email the only acceptable method?

o Even though email is the preferred, most timely method of submittal, RFO FAR

15.107 specifies accepted methodologies. Please note, an "RFP" includes the solicitation itself and all supplemental documents and attachments.

▪ What is the complete list of required recipients for proposal submission?

o marina.callisto@us.af.mil and stephanie.hatlem@us.af.mil. Addendum will be amended to add both recipients.

▪ Are the 25 scheduled permanent roll-offs and the 3 compactors are priced within monthly CLIN

0001?

o Yes, the containers and scheduled service for 25 permanent roll-offs and the 3 compactors are priced within monthly CLIN 0001. For example, over and above:

scheduled biweekly (every other week), but needed once a week for a month because of a temporary increase in refuse.

▪ Are the 8 roamer and load and go roll-offs are also priced within monthly CLIN 0001, notwithstanding the designation at PWS 1.1.2?

o Yes, the 8 roamers at base facilities and load and go roll-offs at bldg 849 are priced within monthly CLIN 0001, notwithstanding the designation at PWS 1.1.2.

▪ Are roamer and load and go collections are over and above services priced per event.

o Partially, yes, load and go roll-offs could be priced as over and above services priced per event; or alternatively, could be anticipated within monthly CLIN 0001.

▪ Can the Government provide the historical number of load and go events and roamer placements over the most recent twelve months, and the historical pull counts for the 25 scheduled permanent roll-offs?

o Partially yes, due to 10 of the permanents and 1 of the roamers are new and not within scope of the current contract. See attached roll-off pulls spreadsheet.

▪ Are the compactor units at Buildings 849, 400, and 412 are Government owned?

o Yes, likely the compactor units at bldgs. 400, 412, 849 are government owned. The receiving containers at bldgs. 412 and 849 are likely contractor owned.

▪ If the Compactors are Government owned, they will be added to Appendix C and the Government furnished property listing by amendment, with the description, manufacturer, model, and condition, and a statement whether they are furnished as is?

o Yes, it will be incorporated in award and yes, they will be furnished as is.

▪ If the compactor is contractor owned, the successor contractor is expected to furnish and install three replacement units before 1 October 2026?

o The successor contractor is expected to furnish and install receiving containers by

October 1.

▪ The units at Buildings 849 and 412 are stationary compactors with separate 40 yard receivers, and the unit at Building 400 is self-contained.

o Yes. Bldg 849 and 412 are stationary compactors with separate 40 yard receivers.

Bldg 400 is self-contained.

▪ Will PWS 1.1.7.5 and Table A-4 be reconciled by amendment as to configuration, capacity, and location at each site of compactors.

o The PWS will be updated to reflect upon award.

▪ Do the compactors receive general refuse commingled with food waste rather than a segregated food waste stream?

o Yes, the compactors have trash commingled with food waste; it is not segregated.

▪ Will the Government provide historical pull frequency and average net weight per pull at each compactor location for the most recent twelve months?

o Yes. See attached 2-mo food waste haul spreadsheet and the compactor use spreadsheet.

▪ Is the successor contractor responsible for removing and disposing of the compactor units currently installed?

o No. Compactor units are government owned

▪ Pad, structural, electrical, and chute interface work required to install a replacement is a

Government responsibility, and the Government will identify the Civil Engineering coordination required and its lead time?

o Yes. Government will perform work on our compactors.

▪ May the contractor's driver open the Building 849 West Door 1 bay without facility personnel present, and if not, service delays attributable to their availability will not be counted as missed collections under PWS 1.1.5.1?

o No. Contractors need to coordinate with the POC. POC will be given to the winning contractor. Yes, usually this is sent on daily request sheets at the end of each day for the next business day and the POC is given the day it is expected to happen.

▪ Are the 60 refuse containers at cans 808 through 867 and the 60 recycling containers at cans 281 through 340 are intended for buildings not yet constructed and are not required in service at contract start?

o Yes. The 60 additional trash and 60 additional recycling are intended for new buildings and are not all required at contract start, only about 12 per year on

October 1. It is also possible that not all new dumpsters would be needed. New dumpsters are also intended for existing buildings not already listed in tables A-3 and A-5.

▪ Will the Government state the anticipated deployment schedule for those containers by contract year?

o No. Contractor will be notified when a new dumpster is needed. Due to delays in construction, exact timelines cannot be determined ahead of time. The contractor should be ready with 12 of each type dumpster ready to deploy during that year.

▪ If the 60 additional containers are in fact required at contract start, the Government will identify the building numbers and locations for each?

o Yes. The building numbers and locations will be provided as needed when new buildings are ready for the dumpsters.

▪ Is the maximum reserved under PWS 1.1.5 60 municipal solid waste containers at 6 cubic yards plus 60 recycling containers at 8 cubic yards, for a total of 120?

o Yes. The total is 120, 60 of each type.

▪ Are those 120 containers separate from and additional to the 120 containers marked New Bldg in

Tables A-3 and A-5?

o No. The maximum additional 120 containers are intended for new buildings not listed in tables A-3 and A-5.

▪ Will the contractor furnish the 120 containers only as directed during the contract term and is not required to have them available at contract start?

o Yes. Not all of them are required at contract start. Only about 12 should be ready for October 2026.

▪ At no additional charge means no price adjustment will be made when they are directed, and offerors are expected to include the full cost of those containers and their recurring service in base pricing so that all quotes rest on the same basis?

o Yes. It is intended that no price adjustment will be made at the time of each request unless the total exceeds 120.

▪ The second parenthetical at PWS 1.1.7.1 reading including up to 60 additional refuse containers, within the recycling container sentence, should read recycling containers?

o Yes. The requirement is additional 60 refuse and additional 60 recycle containers, total 120.

▪ Will the Government reconcile the 210 Government furnished and 72 contractor furnished recycling containers at PWS 1.1.7 against the 280 existing containers shown in Table A-5?

o Yes. The PWS will be reconciled for recycle containers on award.

▪ Will the Government furnished containers be available for physical inspection before quotes are due rather than at turnover?

o No. This is not feasible as it would delay award. COR will remind the incumbent of the requirement to wash and paint GFE.

▪ Will the Government state the date of the most recent washing and painting cycle performed on the Government furnished fleet?

o Yes. An effort will be made to obtain the information.

▪ The successor maintains the Government furnished fleet forward from its condition at turnover and is not expected to bring it to standard at the start of performance?

o No. If a container at turnover needs repair, this is the responsibility of the winning contractor.

▪ The backstop requirement applies only to container types physically capable of accepting the modification, will the Performance Work Statement be amended to say so?

o Yes. Backstops shall be installed as feasible. PWS will be updated on award.

▪ Containers meeting the self closing lid and slot specification at PWS 1.4.2.1.1 are excluded from the backstop requirement?

o Yes. Slot opening is on the box top that is a concern for installing backstop. Install backstop requirement is as feasible.

▪ The Government will identify by amendment which Government furnished containers require backstops and which do not?

o Yes. Box top type recycle containers do not need backstops unless feasible to install.

▪ The LB designations in Tables A-3 and A-5 control, and lock bars are required only where a container carries that designation?

o Yes. LB designation identifies which containers require lock bars. Not all the containers do, only the ones with LB designation

▪ The conflict between PWS 1.1.7.2, 1.4, and 1.4.2.1 will be resolved by amendment rather than by clarification alone.

o It has been updated.

▪ The requirement at PWS 1.4.2.1 to paint and apply new signage to all containers within the first

90 days remains in effect in addition to the annual cycle.

o No. The wash/paint for the first year would be handled at the time of placement.

▪ The 90 day requirement applies to the Government furnished containers as well as the contractor furnished containers.

o No. Only the contractor furnished with the first 90 days, GFE within first year.

▪ The Government will state the spare container inventory it expects the contractor to maintain to satisfy PWS 1.4.2.2, or confirm that sizing is left to the contractor.

o Yes. Spare inventory shall be 6 CY for front load, 40 CY for roll off, compactor, and load-n-go.

▪ The Government will provide the number of containers cleaned, painted, repaired, and replaced in each of the last three contract years, which the blank forms attached by Amendment 0002 do not contain.

o No. The blank forms are for use during the new contract for tracking purposes.

The COR has some data that can be provided to the winning contractor.