N0017423R0026-0001.docx

N0017423R0026

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES (REVISED)

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The purpose of this amendment is to1) remove clauses in Section I, 2) revise clause 52.212-5, 3) revise language in Section M, 4) answer questions asked in response to solicitation issuance, as follows:

1) Section I – Contract Clauses: the following have been deleted:

2) Section I – Contract Clauses: 52.212-5 has been revised

FROM:

X (62) 52.242-5, Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (JAN 2017)(15 U.S.C. 637(d)(13)).

TO:

(62) 52.242-5, Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (JAN 2017)(15 U.S.C. 637(d)(13)).

3) SECTION M - BASIS OF AWARD has been revised

FROM:

The Government will review the Offeror’s proposal to determine whether at least 50% of the cost of the contract performance incurred for personnel will be expended for employees of the Offeror, in accordance with FAR 52.219-14. Any proposal that does not on its face demonstrate that the Offeror’s personnel will be performing at least 50% of the contract work will be deemed to be technically unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award. The Government will not evaluate any proposal that it deems to be technically unacceptable for failure to comply with FAR 52.219-14.

TO:

This solicitation is a Small Business Set-Aside. The Government will review the Offeror’s proposal to determine whether at least 50% of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to first-tier subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities, in accordance with FAR 52.219-14 (Class Deviation 2021-O0008). Any proposal that does not, on its face, demonstrate that the Offeror's personnel or similarly situated entities will be performing at least 50% of the contract work will be deemed to be technically unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award. The Government will not evaluate any proposal that it deems to be technically unacceptable for failure to comply with FAR 52.219-14 (Class Deviation 2021-O0008).

4) Questions submitted in response to solicitation issuance, as well as answers to those questions, are as follows:

Question 1: What Company is the incumbent on this project?

Answer 1: The incumbent is Potomac Environmental.

Question 2: What was the annual spend on this project for the past 3 years?

Answer 2: This information will not be provided.

Question 3: Can you make last year’s manifests available?

Answer 3: This information will not be provided.

Question 4: At this volume, we highly recommend setting up trial loads for the successful execution of this project. Is this an option?

Answer 4: Due to current Government needs/timing, we are unable to accommodate trial loads at this time.

Question 5: If the wastewater is considered non-hazardous waste by the state of Maryland, is a hazardous materials transportation registration necessary?

Answer 5: No, a hazardous materials transportation registration is not necessary.

Question 6: If the wastewater is considered non-hazardous waste by the state of Maryland, and the waste is treated and disposed of at an approved non-hazardous industrial waste facility, is a hazardous material treatment permit necessary?

Answer 6: No, a hazardous material treatment permit is not necessary.

Question 7: What is the consistency of the waste stream? Meaning what is the variability of the loads that are shipped out? From a treatability standpoint, ideally we want the loads to be uniform load to load. If there is a tremendous amount of variance, that will drive up treatment costs.

Answer 7: The wastewater salt composition should be fairly consistent from load to load.

Question 8: Do you have any laboratory analysis on the waste stream? If so, please provide.

Answer 8: This information is not available.

5) All other terms remain unchanged.

6) Direct questions to Alex Sanders at alex.j.sanders12.civ@us.navy.mil.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf