QandA Covered Product Leakage RFP 10132025.pdf

OregonBuys Bid Solicitation #S-34000-00015010 Page 1 of 7 Q&A 10/13/2025

OregonBuys Bid Solicitation #S-34000-00015010 Covered Product Leakage Needs Assessment RFP

Questions and Answers

(Dated 10/13/2025)

Question # Question Subject Question DEQ’s Response

1 Competitiveness Will doing work for CAA impact the competitiveness of a response?

To address this question, DEQ has added an additional minimum offer requirement that either the Contractor has no conflicts of interest or has adequately mitigated conflict of interest. An attachment has been added to the RFP document where the applicant must describe all existing projects, including projects with CAA, that pose a conflict of interest.

2 Legislative vs.

Optional Work Scope

Can DEQ specify which parts of the Phase 1 work (aside from the non-RMA product attribution) are optional versus required for the September 2026 report?

All elements required for DEQ’s needs assessment to the legislature, pursuant to Oregon Laws 2021 c.681 §26a, must be included in phase 1 of the project. Non-RMA product attribution is perhaps the clearest example of something in the RFP scope that goes beyond what is in the statute. For other elements there is more nuance – for example, statute requires evaluation of the need to which cleanup and prevention solutions are needed, but does not require that this evaluation consist of economic and environmental modeling of damages. Therefore, there could be some room to phase the work on this evaluation, as long as the accomplishments of phase 1 are sufficient to meet the letter of the statute, 3 Modeling Assumptions for Policy Scenarios

Is DEQ providing assumptions for potential policy interventions (e.g., expected impact of bans or reuse mandates), or should the contractor propose these based on external precedent?

DEQ envisions a close collaboration among the Contractor and itself throughout the project term. In the context of this partnership approach, DEQ would envision the Contractor leading on proposing assumptions for potential policy interventions on the basis of precedents in other jurisdictions where such policies have been enacted. DEQ would work with the Contractor to review and finalize those assumptions.

4 Phase 2 Review and Contract Extension

If Phase 2 is proposed, what is the anticipated timeline for review and authorization? Will the same contract vehicle be used or will that require re-competition? Are there budget parameters, or does Phase 2 have to fit within the $250,000 cap for this project?

Phase 2 work, if proposed, would be reviewed and authorized together with Phase 1 (e.g. in November-December 2025), with the same contract used to cover both phases. Phase 2 needs to fit within the $250,000 cap for the project.

OregonBuys Bid Solicitation #S-34000-00015010 Page 2 of 7

5 Geographic Resolution and Reporting Format

Are there preferred geographic units DEQ wants used in reporting leakage (e.g., by watershed, county, highway corridor)?

Should reporting align with legislative districts?

The RFP indicates minimum and preferred geographic “compartmentalization” of leakage, i.e., “At a minimum, the assessment should differentiate among leakage into coastal areas (e.g. marine debris), rivers, and the terrestrial environment. If it is possible to further subdivide the terrestrial environment into sub-media – wildlands, roadways, interchanges, rest areas – that is welcomed.”

DEQ would put reporting by particular watershed, county, highway corridor, and/or legislative district into the category of additional granularity that would be nice to have, but is not required.

Reporting by county could have particular salience with the legislature.

6 Primary Research Expectations

Section 2.4(a) mentions "limited primary research focused on waterways" -what is DEQ's expectation for the extent of primary data collection? Are there specific waterways or regions of particular interest?

DEQ is not expecting or requiring inclusion of primary data generation in proposals due to the very limited duration of the project period. That said, if an applicant were to consider it possible to conduct surveys during the project period and were to consider it valuable/necessary for the purpose of filling knowledge gaps, DEQ would take the proposal under consideration.

DEQ would also recommend that the Contractor, in conducting local stakeholder engagement associated with the project, make queries regarding data availability, as this might enable the inclusion of additional data in the project that otherwise might have gone undetected.

Generally, DEQ would note that there have been some substantial studies of litter generation into terrestrial environments conducted in the region, whereas there are more limited studies of other sources of leakage and their inputs into waterways; this is why explicitly DEQ expresses interest in primary research focused on waterways in the RFP (it anticipates that the major knowledge gaps facing the prospective Contractor lie with waterways and other sources of leakage besides litter).

7 Modeling Approach

Does DEQ have preferences regarding modeling frameworks or methodologies (e.g., material flow analysis, life cycle assessment tools, specific plastic leakage models)?

DEQ is not mandating the use of a particular methodology for the modeling work, but is rather excited to see what prospective Contractors propose and will evaluate the proposal as part of evaluating “Approach,” the most highly-scored component in proposal evaluation.

That said, DEQ understands that such studies accomplished in other jurisdictions have generally featured material flow analysis. For plastics, material flow analysis could be supplemented with the use of specific plastic leakage models;

DEQ is familiar with the Plastic Footprint Network methodology in particular.

With respect to the damage costing piece, prospective Contractors are welcomed to review relevant modeling that DEQ commissioned in the context of developing its material https://www.oregon.gov/deq/recycling/Documents/RMAModeling.pdf

OregonBuys Bid Solicitation #S-34000-00015010 Page 3 of 7 acceptance lists under the Recycling Modernization Act. This modeling did not encompass plastic pollution impacts, but DEQ has been exploring the use of the MariLCA method to fill this gap.

8 Geographic Granularity

How detailed should the geographic breakdown be?

Are there specific regions, counties, or watersheds that should be prioritized?

See response to question #5 above.

9 Baseline Year What baseline year(s) should be used for quantifying plastic leakage and costs?

This would be subject to consideration and joint decision-making among the Contractor and DEQ during the project implementation, but DEQ considers it likely that the most fitting baseline will likely be one of three years – 2022, 2023, or 2024. DEQ’s most recent material recovery survey data is from 2022, its most recent waste composition data is from 2023, and the most recent supply data reported to PROs is from 2024.

10 Covered Products Definition

Can DEQ provide estimates of the volume/tonnage of covered products currently in Oregon's market to help scope attribution work?

Volume data by material category reported by PROs to DEQ is generally claimed confidential, so DEQ has not included such data in the RFP. However, DEQ would share such data with the Contractor in aggregated format once data sharing provisions are in place. In the meantime, prospective Contractors can refer to the following data sources for scoping purposes:

1. DEQ Material Recovery Survey

2. DEQ Waste Composition Study

3. Circular Action Alliance’s program plan estimate of covered product supply in the state: Appendix B, pg B- 38.

11 Microplastics Sources

Should tire wear particles and textile microfibers be quantified separately from macroplastic degradation?

There is available data on the different rates of leakage due to tire wear, textile microfiber emissions, and breakdown of other macroplastic consumer goods into microplastics – for example, these three sources of plastic pollution are compartmentalized from one another in the Plastic Footprint Network methodology for calculation of plastic leakage.

Because such data exists, it would likely make sense to compartmentalize these sources of leakage from one another.

12 Polymer Specificity How critical is polymer-level (#1-#7) differentiation versus broader material categories?

DEQ views polymer-level differentiation as a nice-to-have but, in terms of meeting the requirements of Oregon Laws 2021 c.681 §26a, it is more important that all main material categories covered by the Recycling Modernization Act (e.g.

plastic, paper, glass, metal) are accounted for, as well as product formats covered by the Act (e.g. packaging, printing and writing paper, food serviceware).

https://marilca.org/ https://www.oregon.gov/deq/recycling/Pages/Survey.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/deq/mm/Pages/Waste-Composition-Study.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/deq/recycling/Documents/CAAamendOPPa2.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/deq/recycling/Documents/CAAamendOPPa2.pdf

OregonBuys Bid Solicitation #S-34000-00015010 Page 4 of 7

DEQ understands that different microplastics (e.g. resins #1-7) behave differently in the environment, with lighter-density polymers more likely to float in aquatic media and negatively impact marine biodiversity. For this reason, MariLCA, a leading method to account for plastic pollution impacts in life cycle assessment, includes different characterization factors for different resins. As such, polymer differentiation could be helpful when the Contractor gets to the point of assigning damage costs to leakage

13 Contract Type What type of contract do you plan on awarding, firm fixed price or time and materials?

This will be a firm fixed price contract.

14 Sources for leakage assessment

Will the locations and sources for leakage assessment be primarily reliant on literature review and possibly supplemented with limited primary research focused on water ways? a. Are there any undesirable sources of data or modeling practices? b. Can you clarify what “possibly supplemented” means in this regard, and what this primary research could look like?

See response to question #6 above, which partially responds to this question as well.

DEQ wishes to leave room for diverse proposals with respect to methodology and data sources rather than make explicit exclusions at this time.

Primary research could encompass quantification of leaked macromaterials and/or mico- and nano-particles within specific environments of Oregon (e.g. rivers, coastline, ocean) that lack robust existing data. The rate at which macroplastics degrade into micro- and nano-particles is also understood to be a knowledge gap, but not one that a Contractor is likely to be able to effectively fill in the short window for this work.

15 Level of resolution What level of resolution (i.e. facility, municipality, county) are you looking to have the identified locations and hotspots for leakage quantified at? a.

How does this change for specific materials in the

RMA?

See response to question #5 above, which partially responds to this question.

Granularity with respect to geographic localization may be different from one material to another if there is substantially different data availability on leakage rates per material. For example, there is existing data and modelling on microplastic leakage into terrestrial vs riverine vs coastal environments.

Parallel information may be difficult to obtain or entirely absent for microfiber (e.g paper) fragments.

16 Clarification Please confirm and clarify that DEQ requires all leakage modeled and quantified using the latest published methodologies such as the Plastic Leakage Project Guidelines?

DEQ wishes to leave room for diverse proposals with respect to methodology and data sources rather than make explicit exclusions at this time. However, DEQ generally has a preference for best available and latest methodologies.

https://marilca.org/

OregonBuys Bid Solicitation #S-34000-00015010 Page 5 of 7

17 Available data What type of data is already collected or will be available for contractors to use for this project?

See response to question #10 above.

18 Section 3.4.6 Price Under section 3.4.6 Price, the RFP states that “Separate line items for personnel, travel, supplies, other costs, and administrative and overhead charges (if any)” are to be submitted. Please confirm that offerors are required to provide a separate line item for administrative and overhead charges that are applicable to non-labor expenses only?

If an Offeror has administrative and overhead charges that are included in the total Price of the Offer, then include them as a separate line item.

The administrative and overhead line item does not have to separate out administration and overhead costs applicable to labor from those not applicable to labor.

19 Presentation material

Will you please share the slide deck that was presented in the pre-offer call?

Yes. The slides were posted to the OregonBuys bid solicitation on 10/10/2025. See Attachments tab.

20 Small business The RFP notes that small business participation is encouraged. Will you please clarify whether the utilization of small businesses will influence the evaluation or basis of award?

The utilization of small businesses is not part of the evaluation criteria and will have no influence on the award.

21 Attachment F Regarding Attachment F, Questions 2 and 3: When the form requests a list of certified firms, does this refer specifically to firms certified through the Oregon Certification Office for Business Inclusion and Diversity (COBID), or are certifications from other state certification offices also acceptable?

“Certified Firm” means a small business certified under ORS

200.055 by the Oregon Certification Office for Business Inclusion and Diversity (COBID) as minority-owned businesses, woman-owned businesses, businesses that service-disabled veterans owned, and emerging small businesses.

22 Task 1b For Task 1b, is there a full list of materials that have

The other product stewardship programs in the state are for:

OregonBuys Bid Solicitation #S-34000-00015010 Page 6 of 7 been identified as “attributable to other products managed through active stewardship programs not in the RMA” or “attributable to products without extended producer responsibility programs”?

• Electronic devices,

• pharmaceuticals (drug take-back),

• architectural paint,

• mattresses, and

• beverage containers

Exact definitions of the scope of products included in these programs can be found in relevant sections of the Oregon statute ORS 459A.

As for products without extended producer responsibility programs, this refers to all products not covered by the five programs above, nor by the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act.

23 Task 1c, ii Per Task 1c, ii, are indirect costs of plastic leakage intended to be dollar amounts derived from socioeconomic factors, or are the costs intended to be the socioeconomic impacts themselves (i.e.

disamenity)?

When it is possible to quantify damages of indirect impacts in dollar amounts, DEQ welcomes doing so – for an example of such an approach commissioned by DEQ, prospective contractors are advised to review modeling that underpins the material acceptance lists set in rule under the Recycling Modernization Act. When it it not possible to do so, DEQ encourages the Contractor to describe the impacts qualitatively instead.

24 Task 1e Per Task 1e, do local entities need to be included in the response to the RFP as subcontractors?

a. Are there any restrictions on which local entities can be included as subcontractors, or on how we may engage or approach them?

Local entities do not need to, but may be included as subcontractors in a proposal. There are not specific restrictions on inclusion of local entities, nor on how they may be engaged or approached.

25 Phase 2 For Phase 2, could you please clarify in detail the specific work DEQ expects to be included in addition to the allocation of plastic leakage to products managed under other stewardship programs?

See response to question #2 above.

26 Reporting When are reports to DEQ by the Contractor due?

The exact reporting schedule would be defined when negotiating the Scope of Work with the Contractor, but DEQ envisions close DEQ-Contractor collaboration throughout the project term, with reports due from the Contractor to DEQ when each major deliverable is completed (e.g. represented generally through the lettered itemization in the Scope of Work section of the RFP). This will allow DEQ to work in parallel https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors459A.html https://www.oregon.gov/deq/recycling/Documents/RMAModeling.pdf

OregonBuys Bid Solicitation #S-34000-00015010 Page 7 of 7 to the Contractor on assembling the Contractor’s findings within the needs assessment due to the legislature on September 15, 2026.

27 Leakage Is DEQ interested in leakage from a particular portion of the product life cycle (e.g. end of life), or across the life cycle?

DEQ intends for the needs assessment to encompass leakage from throughout products’ life cycles, and has amended the RFP’s definition of “leakage” to reflect this.

28 Leakage Does the project encompass estimating the leakage resulting from an individual producer’s products or rather should the Contractor look at leakage cumulatively across all producers and products?

The Contractor need not estimate leakage on a producer-specific basis, but rather estimate leakage cumulatively across producers’ products of various categories.