Waste_Removal_Industry_Teleconference_5_17_17.pptx
PPTX presentation 2 MB Posted
- Attached to
- Waste Removal and Recycling Services
- Solicitation number
- NNC17ZC010Q
About this file
Waste Removal Industry Teleconference slides.
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
May 17, 2017 Waste Management and Recycling Services Industry Teleconference Logistics and Technical Information Division (LTID)
Welcome to GRC.
AGENDA
| Speaker | Time | Subject |
| Valerie Daniel, Contracting Officer | 10:00 am | Welcome and Administrative Remarks |
| Jennifer Mudge, Contracting Officer Representative, Source Evaluation Committee | 10:05 | Overview of the Glenn Research Center and Plum Brook Waste Management Services |
| Valerie Daniel and Jim Griffin, Contracting Officers | 10:20 | Request for Quote Information |
| Source Evaluation Committee | ||
| 10:35 | Question and Answer Period |
Please note: The information presented today is a draft and not the final Request for Quotes.
This is today’s agenda.
Goals of Industry Teleconference Introduce Industry to the GRC Waste Removal and Recycling requirement.
Promote competition on the proposed acquisition.
To inform potential offerors about the NASA/Glenn procurement selection process.
Provide information regarding the GRC Waste Removal and Recycling Request for Quotes (RFQ).
Familiarize offerors with the Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field and Plum Brook Station.
These are the goals we want to accomplish today. We want to familiarize you with GRC and the Protective Services mission, organization and functions in particular.
GRIFFIN, JAMES R. (GRC-CHC0) (GJR() - I wouldn't call them the waste management team? maybe something else?
GRIFFIN, JAMES R. (GRC-CHC0) (GJR() - Waste removal and recycling services RFQ NASA Glenn Research Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PS–01294–0414
GRIFFIN, JAMES R. (GRC-CHC0) (GJR() - Spell out LTID Independent Verification & Validation Facility Fairmont, WV
Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas
Michoud Assembly Facility New Orleans, LA
Stennis Space Center Stennis Space Center, MS Langley Research Center Hampton, VA
Kennedy Space Center Cape Canaveral, FL
NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C.
Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL Glenn Research Center Lewis Field Cleveland, OH Ames Research Center Mountain View, CA
Armstrong Flight Research Center Edwards, CA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA
Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD
White Sands Test Facility White Sands, NM
Wallops Flight Facility Wallops Island, VA
Deep Space Network Facilities:
Goldstone, in CA Mojave Desert near Madrid, Spain near Canberra, Australia Glenn Research Center Plum Brook Station Sandusky, OH
Lewis Field Located in Cleveland, Ohio, adjacent to Cleveland Hopkins Airport 350 acres 8 road miles 162 buildings
Plum Brook Station Component facility in Sandusky, Ohio 6,400 acres 63 road miles 74 buildings and numerous storage igloos
Approximately 3,200 employees and 30,000 visitors annually
NASA Glenn Research Center Overview
LTID
The Center has active programs designed to reduce the amount of solid waste that is sent to landfills. These programs are designed to collect and manage recyclable materials, properly dispose of hazardous wastes, and minimize the amount of trash sent to municipal waste landfills. The Center currently has containers at various locations for the collection of these types of materials and all Center personnel are encouraged to participate in these programs by placing designated recyclable and waste materials in the proper collection containers.
Waste Removal and Recycling Services
LTID
GRIFFIN, JAMES R. (GRC-CHC0) (GJR() - Center provided?
Daniel, Valerie D. (GRC-CHB0) (DVD() - currently has??
Municipal Waste Three days a week (approx. 57 buildings/areas) GRC only Scrap Metal 1x a week (approx. 21 buildings) GRC only Cardboard, Paper Recycling Containers 1x a week (approx. 80 locations) PB and GRC Aluminum cans, plastic bottles, glass bottles 1x a week (1 location) Miscellaneous roll-off containers (how often emptied?)
As needed (17 containers) PB and GRC
Overview of Waste Removal and Recycling Services
GRIFFIN, JAMES R. (GRC-CHC0) (GJR() - Current?
NASA Glenn Research Center Waste Removal and Recycling Procurement RFQ Information
Valerie Daniel, Contract Specialist
Special Item
The Government anticipates that during the life of the contract, additional requirements, which are within the general scope of this contract, but not specifically identified under the firm-fixed price portion of the contract, will be required in support of NASA’s mission. To accomplish these additional requirements, the Government will issue task orders on a Firm-Fixed Price basis for the ordering of these services and supplies
30 Day Phase-in Period
Special Item Deduction Schedule Manifests Plum Brook Waste addition
INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS
The following page limitations are established for each portion of the quote submitted in response to this solicitation.
| Factor I – Technical Capability | 10 Pages |
| Factor II – Relevant Experience | 15 Pages |
and Past Performance Factor III – Price No Page Limit
Offerors shall ensure completed Past Performance Questionnaires are submitted on or before the due date for receipt of quotes.
Quote Preparation – General Instructions The Quotation package shall consist of:
A. Factor I - Technical Quote (Technical Capability)
B. Factor II – Relevant Experience and Past Performance
C. Factor III - Price
GRIFFIN, JAMES R. (GRC-CHC0) (GJR() - this is wrong need to put in the technical gate information
This acquisition uses a simplified and streamlined process as authorized under FAR 13.5, Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror on a BEST VALUE basis. This procurement will be conducted as a Relevant Experience and Past Performance/Price Tradeoff Source Selection with Technical Quotes. The Government will evaluate the Technical Quote for technical acceptability based on the “Technical Considerations” set forth below. All technically “acceptable” proposals will be further evaluated using a tradeoff process between relevant experience and past performance and price. The Quotation package shall consist of:
| Factor I | Technical Capability | Original plus 2 printed copies plus 2 electronic copy |
| Factor II | Relevant Experience and Past Performance | Original plus 2 printed copies plus 2 electronic copy |
| Factor III | Price | Original plus 2 printed copies plus 2 electronic copy |
The Government intends to award a single Firm Fixed Price contract with an Indefinite Delivery/ Indefinite Quantity element. The awarded contract will have a thirty-day Phase-In, a one-year base period, and four one-year option periods. The anticipated contract start date is October 1, 2017.
| Contract Year | Type | Months | Period | |
| Phase In | FFP | 1 | 30 days prior to award | |
| Base | Year 1 | FFP and IDIQ | 12 | October 1, 2017 – September 30, 2018 |
| Option I | Year 2 | FFP and IDIQ | 12 | October 1, 2018 – September 30, 2019 |
| Option II | Year 3 | FFP and IDIQ | 12 | October 1, 2019 – September 30, 2020 |
| Option III | Year 4 | FFP and IDIQ | 12 | October 1, 2020 – September 30, 2021 |
| Option IV | Year 5 | FFP and IDIQ | 12 | October 1, 2021 – September 30, 2022 |
| Table – Contract Period of Performance |
GRIFFIN, JAMES R. (GRC-CHC0) (GJR() - this is wrong need to put in the technical gate information Quote Preparation – Deductions The Government has identified several key areas that will be monitored and addressed in accordance with a Deduction Schedule In Section D of DRFP. Violations of certain metrics, defined in the Deduction Schedule by the Contractor may result in financial penalties and/or the entry of written reprimands in the Government’s Past Performance database.
The Government reserves the right to deduct from monthly invoices or the final payment an amount as indicated for non-satisfactory performance of work.
Deductive amounts are not negotiable
Deduction Schedule??
GRIFFIN, JAMES R. (GRC-CHC0) (GJR() - Capitilize Source Selection Procedures This procurement will be conducted as a Past Performance/Price Tradeoff Source Selection with Technical Quotes.
The Government will evaluate the Technical Quote for technical acceptability based on “Technical Considerations.”
Overall, in the selection of a Contractor for contract award, Relevant Experience and Past Performance and Price Factors will be of approximately equal importance.
Technical Offer (Technical Capability) The Government will evaluate the provided information for each factor for accuracy, overall understanding, and completeness. The Government will assign an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating for each factor and an overall Acceptable/Unacceptable Technical Rating. For an Offeror to be considered Acceptable, each factor must be addressed to an acceptable level.
Source Selection Procedures
• These definitions will be used to classify the findings of the Technical Capability Evaluation of the offerors:
| Rating | Description | |
| Acceptable | Offer meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. | |
| Unacceptable | Offer does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Offer is un-awardable |
Source Evaluation Procedures All Technically Acceptable offers will be further evaluated between relevant experience and past performance and price.
Source Evaluation Procedures
Relevant Experience and Past Performance:
The Offeror’s Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor shall consist of three (3) distinct sections, two (2) of which the Offeror shall provide and one (1) of which the Government will obtain. The three sections are detailed as follows:
Past Performance Narrative (PPN) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) Past Performance Databases (PPD)
Past Performance will be rated using the table on following slide:
| Rating | DESCRIPTION (FAR 1815.305(a)(2)(A)) |
| Very High Level of Confidence | The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more significant strengths exist. No significant weaknesses exist.) |
| High Level of Confidence | The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more significant strengths exist. Strengths outbalance any weakness.) |
| Moderate Level of Confidence | The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (There may be strengths or weaknesses or both.) |
| Rating | DESCRIPTION (FAR 1815.305(a)(2)(A)) |
| Low Level of Confidence | The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements. ** (One or more weaknesses exist. Weaknesses outbalance strengths.) |
| Very Low Level of Confidence | The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas; problems in one or more areas which adversely affect overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses exist.) |
| Neutral | In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). |
Relevant Experience and Past Performance
The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s experience to determine whether it is relevant to the SOW and overall requirements of this procurement. Consideration will be given to: overall contract performance, type of client, contract type, contract size, and type of services provided.
The Government will evaluate the information provided in Factor II, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, client questionnaires, Government’s past performance databases, and other sources available to the Government.
Offerors without a record of relevant past performance shall receive a neutral rating in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).
Relevant Experience and Past Performance The results of the PPN, PPQ, and PPD evaluations will be considered in determining the Level of Confidence rating. Each area is considered approximately equal in value.
In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].
Price Evaluation Although the price volume is not numerically scored nor receives an adjectival rating, it is important in determining that the Offeror understands the solicitation and the resources required.
A price analysis will be conducted to ensure that a fair and reasonable price is paid by the Government and to assess the reasonableness of the proposed price.
The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).
A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.
The total proposed price consists of the Phase-In Period, Base Period, and all Options.
The price evaluation includes: comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimate; and analysis of pricing information provided by the Offeror.
Relatively low prices will also be evaluated to determine whether there is a risk of default in the event of award to that offeror.
Tentative Milestones These dates are subject to change
| Issue RFP | 05/25/2017 |
| Offers Received | 06/26/2017 |
| Evaluation of quotes | 06/27/2017 |
| Contract Award | 08/01/2017 |
| Phase-In Period Begins | 09/01/2017 |
| Contract Effective Date | 10/01/2017 |
The Government asks all interested parties to review and provide comments.
Comments will be considered by the Government for the final RFQ. The deadline for comments to this DRFQ is May 24, 2017. Please provide all comments via email to Valerie Daniel at Valerie.d.daniel@nasa.gov. Comments regarding the DRFQ will not be released to the public.
GRIFFIN, JAMES R. (GRC-CHC0) (GJR() - Noo lol!
image1.png image2.png image3.png image4.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .