RFP-202605094_Q
36 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Environmental Packaging Stewardship Services
- Solicitation number
- RFP - 06A - 202605094
- Issued by
- Maine
About this file
This document comprises bidder questions and answers (Q&A) related to RFP-202605094, issued by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection for environmental packaging stewardship services. The RFP solicits proposals from a Stewardship Organization to operate Maine's Packaging Stewardship Program under state statute 38 M.R.S. 2146 and administrative rule 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428. The Department seeks one award to establish and manage day-to-day program operations, including a secure multi-user portal, public-facing website, and field data collection application; administer the Packaging Stewardship Fund; conduct program assessments comprising cost studies, audits, and statewide needs assessments; manage infrastructure and education investments; and produce annual reports. The mandatory virtual Bidders' Conference occurred on June 29, 2026, with questions due by 11:59 p.m. that same date. Proposals were due August 3, 2026, via the Vendor Self-Service System. The initial contract period runs September 15, 2026, through January 30, 2030, with three optional renewal periods extending through January 30, 2036, contingent on continued funding and satisfactory performance. The contract term will include completion of one Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment.
Funding derives entirely from the Packaging Stewardship Fund, which is established and operated by the awarded bidder under Department supervision. The bidder must maintain fund reserves equal to at least two years of projected municipal reimbursements, ongoing operational expenses, and the Department's fixed $300,000 annual administration fee, payable by January 30 each year beginning 2027. The Department requires bidders to demonstrate financial viability through current Dun & Bradstreet reporting and provide certificates for general liability and professional liability insurance. Bidders must submit a comprehensive Stewardship Fund Financial Assurance Plan and work plan with realistic implementation timelines. Producer start-up registration fees must be collected within 180 days of contract signing. Annual producer fees and municipal reimbursements are deposited to and disbursed from the Fund, with municipal reimbursements due October 1 annually beginning 2027. The awarded bidder must fund an independent third-party financial audit annually and ensure all developed systems comply with Maine Office of Information Technology (OIT) policies and standards. All systems, data, and technical solutions developed under this contract are owned by the State of Maine and considered Executive Branch Agency Information Assets subject to OIT administrative control.
Text of this file
Sheet1
| Question | Answer | |
| VSS Submitted Questions | ||
| 1 | Section A 1 (pp. 10-11) Is DEP agnostic regarding whether the portal be a single portal, or multiple portals for different users? Can this be through the SO's existing website or does it have to... Can this be through the SO's existing website or does it have to be a unique website? | The Department is procuring three technical solutions that communicate with one another seamlessly and the services of the bidder to maintain the systems and provide the day-to-day operations under the supervision of the Department. The systems will owned by the Department, however the awarded bidder is responsible for delivering a system that fully complies with all OIT policies and standards. The Bidders proposed workplan should ensure that these are understood prior to development of the proposed system. All 3 solutions must be branded as the State of Maine. |
| 2 | Section A 1 (h) (p. 11) The RFP indicates under (h) that "All public submission forms shall include automated data validation, confirmation messaging, and notification to program administrators upon receipt." In this context, does this refer to the SO program administrator, as opposed to Department administrator, or both? | This is referring to the SO program administrator for the technical solution provided by the SO. |
| 3 | Section A 2 (pp. 11-12) It is unclear who is to develop guidance documentation for producers - will this be the Department in all cases or will the SO have a role? Further, who will be required to respond to producer guidance questions when issues may arise? When does DEP expect to have these guidance documents available? Does this include producer guidance? | The SO will be responsible for providing guidance on reporting and using the technical solutions developed by the SO. All guidance produced by the SO will be reviewed by the Department prior to issuing. The Department will produce guidance on interpretation of statute and rule. Any topics that cross over these subjects will be produced collaboratively and the Department will have final approval. The SO will be responsible for answering questions from producers and the public but will not provide interpretation of law or rule that is beyond the scope of what has been confirmed by the Department. Regular meetings will be scheduled between the SO and the Department to go over any questions that require Department input. |
| 4 | Section A 2 (pp. 11-12) Given the change in statute relative to the definition of "consumer," can DEP clarify whether producers are obligated to report and pay in on packaging that does not routinely go to consumers and/or is not managed by municipal recycling programs? (e.g., transport OCC that goes to large retailers who are not generally serviced by municipal programs) | This question is outside of the scope of this RFP and may be covered during producer outreach once guidance documents have been published . The Department will work with the awarded bidder to ensure producer registration and reporting are in line with guidance. |
| 5 | Section A 3 (a) (i) (p. 12) The RFP allows municipalities to access cost studies used to determine their reimbursement. Can/should the cost studies be anonymized if the cost studies are for other "Similar Municipalities"? | No, cost reporting and municipal data is not proprietary and does not require anonymization. |
| 6 | Section A 3 (c) (p. 12) The RFP states the system "shall auto generate municipal reimbursements," however no such provision exists in rules (Chapter 428 §§ 6 or 7). Is the need for auto-calculation required as part of the RFP or simply preferred? Further, will this reimbursement calculation information be accessible to program administrators or to the municipalities as well? | This refers to the calculations for municipal reimbursements following the procedure laid out in 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, §§ 6 and 7, the calculations will need to be auto-generated because of the limited time frame for calculations following the submittal of information. Auto-calculation or auto-generation is a requirement of the system that the Department is procuring. All calculation inputs will be transparent and visible to both Department staff and municipalities |
| 7 | Section A 4 (p. 13) Would DEP approve an intermediary investment proposal process while the technology solution is being implemented, Needs Assessment is being conducted, and budget is refined? Or allow for a delay in the investment proposal process until that work is complete? | As stated in Part II (L)(1), the Department will consider accepting the technical solution in major phases. An example of a phase delineation is provided there, but bidders may propose an alternative. A final timeline will be approved in contracting with the awarded bidder. |
| 8 | Section A 4 (p. 13) Some of the requirements of the interface do not appear to be required in rule and may not be cost-effective. Would DEP allow for proposals that meet the legislative and regulatory requirements but not all of the RFP requirements? | If the bidder believes the requirements of the RFP are beyond what they can offer, then they should provide an explanation as to why they cannot meet the requirement and what the bidder can offer. All bidders will be evaluated based on the requirements outlined in the RFP. While cost is a consideration for the awarded bidder the proposed services outlined in the scope of services section of the RFP carry the most weight when scoring bids. |
| 9 | Section A 6 (a) (p. 14) The ability to have an operational Field Data Collection Application go-live for 2026 when, at the earliest, a contract will not be signed until September 2026 at the earliest, seems extremely unlikely. Is this application necessary from program implementation or could it be phased in? Is the UPC scanning essential to the project or an optional feature of the field data application? | The Department believes that UPC scanning may assist field staff in conducting litter audits and producer reporting audits. If the bidder believes the requirements of the RFP are beyond what they can offer, then they should provide an explanation as to why they cannot meet the requirement and what the bidder can offer. All bidders will be evaluated based on the requirements outlined in the RFP. While cost is a consideration for the awarded bidder the proposed services outlined in the scope of services section of the RFP carry the most weight when scoring bids. |
| 10 | Section A 5 (b) (p. 14) Does "the system shall reflect the operational independence of the SO in managing day to day fund activities" have implications on how the product stewardship fund account is established? For example, does the account need to be set up by DEP, within the state? | The selected Stewardship Organization (SO) is responsible for establishing and operating the fund throughout the contract period. If the contract ends or is terminated, any remaining funds are forfeited to the Department. During the contract, the Department requires visibility into fund balances rather than direct access to the account. This includes access to the fund administration module. |
| 11 | Section A 5 (b) (p. 14) Can we interpret "system" as including all the processes completed by the SO, including those with calculations done offline in the backend vs. those done automatically by an IT system (which is probably not realistic or feasible in many cases) | The "system" refers to the technical solution being procured by the Department and provided by the awarded bidder. |
| 12 | Section A 6 (e) (pp. 14-15) What does "periodic material audits every five years" refer to? This does not align with requirements for disposal audits, representative audits, site-specific audits, etc., as described in rule. What information (if any) is DEP expecting to be collected in the field using the Field Data Collection Application to support the Needs Assessment? | 06-096 C.M.R. Ch. 428, § 14(b)(2)(a), identifies the initial auditing and frequency requirements of representative audits. The primary role of the Field App will be for collecting data for representative audits, disposal audits, litter audits, or any other situation where the SO will have staff collecting data in a field setting. As part of the SO's plan, the awarded bidder will propose a methodology for conducting the Statewide Needs Assessment to the Department, this may or may not involve use of the Field App. |
| 13 | Section A 7 (p. 15) Can DEP provide more detail on what its anticipated review and approval workflow between the SO and DEP will look like? | The process and timing for review and approval between SO and DEP will depend on the system selected and parameters determined by both the DEP and the SO, provided that program requirements are met. |
| 14 | Section A 8 (a) (p. 15) Does DEP intend for performance tracking to show municipal-level data as well, rather than state-level as defined in Chapter 428 3(A)? If so, by when does DEP want to see this data tracked and analyzed, considering that it may take 1-3 years to establish a baseline? | The Department expects overall program performance to be evaluated at the statewide level. However, municipality-level data is necessary to understand statewide performance and develop a complete picture of program results. The Department recognizes that the Stewardship Organization will need time to establish reporting systems and develop reliable baseline data. |
| 15 | Section B (1) (p. 16) How is a "private fund" defined? | The selected Stewardship Organization (SO) and not the Department is responsible for establishing and operating the fund throughout the contract period. If the contract ends or is terminated, any remaining funds are forfeited to the Department. See 38 M.R.S. § 2146(3)(A)(4). During the contract, the Department only requires visibility into fund balances rather than direct access to the account. |
| 16 | Section B (3) (a) (p. 16) Will the DEP consider allowing for municipal reimbursement to be based on one-season of cost studies and representative audits if time does not allow two seasons during the first program year? If the SO has not received full funding from producers by the time municipal reimbursements are due (i.e., not enough funds are available), can the SO delay providing reimbursement until funds are available? | The Department would make that determination in coordination with the Stewardship Organization. If funds are unavailable, reimbursements cannot be issued until funding is available. |
| 17 | Section (C) (1) (b) (p. 16) Given the Needs Assessment will not be complete until 18 months after the contract is signed, and needed investments should be based on findings from the Need Assessment, would DEP consider extending the submission of evaluation and proposals to July 2029? | The Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment and SO collaboration with the Department will identify major investment needs and plan for their funding using a savings plan as described in 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 18(D). This is in addition to accepting, evaluating, and awarding investment funding to approved infrastructure and education investment proposals. If the bidder believes acceptance of investment proposals warrants delay they may provide a plan for such in their bid. A final timeline will be approved in contracting with the awarded bidder. |
| 18 | Section D 1(a) (iii) (p. 17) Should this clause read "Develop a cost reporting plan for each participating municipality 'that will be completing a cost study in that year', establishing the cost data elements required for annual program reporting and by February 28th of the participating municipality's first reporting year"? | In accordance with 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 14(A), the SO will be responsible for conducting 12 cost studies annually and will provide the municipalities that are selected for cost studies with cost reporting plans that identify the cost information they are required to annually report to the SO. Cost reporting plans will be due to municipalities by February 28th of the municipality's first cost reporting year. |
| 19 | Section D 1(a) (iii) (p. 17) Can DEP clarify whether litter cleanup and education and outreach are reimbursable expenses? It was our understanding that these activities would be addressed through investments. Including them in a cost reimbursement calculation would be time consuming, increasing costs and reduce the accuracy of reimbursement cost calculations. | Cost elements that the SO will consider when completing a cost study are detailed in 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 6. Litter clean-up, education, and outreach events are not part of the cost determination calculations outlined in this section of rule. The SO will separately be responsible for conducting litter audits twice a year; results from these audits are not required until program year 3. A final timeline will be approved in contracting with the awarded bidder. |
| 20 | Section D 1 (a) (iv) (p. 17) Can DEP explain what "recycling service model" means, and what the expectations are around reporting per-ton costs for different service models? Chapter 428, does not mention or define "recycling service model." This seems to introduce a sub municipal grouping for each recycling service model, which goes beyond what is required in the rules. Recycling service model representation is limited by the fact that there are only 3 cost studies per grouping. Could the SO instead take the approach of selecting municipalities for cost studies with a goal of obtaining cost data across representative recycling program types (e.g., drop-off vs. curbside) within the grouping, to the extent possible? | In accordance with, 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 14, when completing cost studies, the SO will randomly select 3 participating municipalities in each group of similar municipalities (defined in 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 15). These municipalities may provide recycling services in different ways (e.g., MRFs, transfer stations, drop-off facilities). The SO will select municipalities for cost studies regardless of these differences in recycling services and will determine the median cost per ton for recycling in accordance with 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 16. |
| 21 | Section D 1 (a) (v) (p. 17) Can DEP explain how supply data is relevant to cost studies? | Section D 1 (a) (v) (p. 17), is identifying that the awarded bidder shall conduct 12 complete cost studies annually with participating municipalities, in accordance with 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 14(A)(1) to supply data to inform municipal reimbursements pursuant to 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 13, and to inform packaging material type fees used to invoice producers, pursuant to 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 10(A)(2). This is saying that the SO will be responsible for supplying data to inform municipal reimbursement. |
| 22 | Section D 1 Can DEP confirm that reuse programs are alternative collection programs, as defined in rule, and therefore not subject to municipal reimbursement unless the alternative collection program is municipally operated? | Reusable packaging material as defined in 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 2(Z) necessitates the use of an alternative collection program (ACP). ACPs are producer-run and therefore will not be a cost incurred by municipalities to manage packaging material. |
| 23 | Section D 1 Can DEP clarify the point at which municipalities report compostable packaging going to compost facilities, and the SO being required to conduct cost studies of such material streams? | Municipalities report composting information to the Department through the Municipal Recycling Progress Report. If, during a cost study, the Stewardship Organization (SO) determines that a selected municipality sends packaging material to a composting facility where it is processed into compost, the SO will be responsible for conducting a representative audit of that composting stream. |
| 24 | Section D 2 (p. 18) Can sampling occur across two seasons for each selected municipality as follows? Year 1 sampling will occur between Sept. 1, 2026 - May 31, 2027 (due to delayed RFP issuance) and June 1, 2027 - Aug. 31, 2027 and Year 2 sampling will occur between Sept. 1, 2027 - May 31, 2028. Can the cost studies for Year 2 utilize a combination of Year 1 (June 1, 2027 - Aug. 31, 2027) and Year 2 (Sept 1, 2027 - May 31, 2028) data in order to adhere to reimbursement timelines? | If the bidder believes an intermediary sampling schedule is necessary, they may provide a plan for such in their bid. A final timeline will be approved in contracting with the awarded bidder. |
| 25 | Section D 2 (b) (p. 18) Can DEP provide more detail on what is meant by "apply results to all participating municipalities as appropriate"? What would be the process to establish which municipalities the SO should apply the results to? | 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 14(B)(3)(c) identifies the applicability of site-specific audit results. |
| 26 | Section D 2 (b) (p. 18) Can DEP provide more detail around its expectation for when it may begin requesting site-specific audits from the awarded bidder? | 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 14(B)(3) outlines the process, determination, and applicability of site-specific audits. The Department does not anticipate many requests for site-specific audits in the first few years of program operation. Any municipality that requests a site-specific audit will identify how audit results currently used for reimbursements made to the municipality are no longer applicable to its operations. If the Department receives multiple requests, the SO can expect that the Department will consolidate any site-specific audit needs to the fewest possible required to meet the need. The SO will have 1 year after approval of a site-specific audit request to complete the request. If additional time is needed to complete the requests, the Department may delay approval for up to 12 months. |
| 27 | Section D 3 (p. 18-20) Since this is essentially a 10-year contract, and information needed may change over the next 10 years, can we assume this proposal only needs to consider the completion of one Needs Assessment? | The contract term will include the completion of 1 Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment. |
| 28 | Section D 3 (p. 19) Would DEP be comfortable with regionalized results in the Needs Assessment to protect any proprietary information received from municipalities and service providers, as well as to minimize impacts of non-response? Regions could align with the county breakdown identified for the cost studies for simplicity. | The Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment will be conducted in accordance with 38 M.R.S. § 2146(3)(A)(7) and 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 3(C). If proprietary information is collected as part of the needs assessment, it may be identified as such to the Department and appropriate measures taken to protect that information with the release of the document to the public. Both individual municipal data and summary data are expected to be included in the report provided to the Department. These data points are identified in Part II (D)(3) and Part II (E)(6)(g) of the RFP. |
| 29 | Section D 3 (a) (iv) (p. 20) How does DEP define "generated"? Is it the quantity of materials currently recycled, the quantity of readily recyclable materials that are available in the state but not being recycled (i.e., landfilled, transferred, etc.), both, or neither? | Generated refers to the Point of Generation as defined in 38 M.R.S. § 2101-A(3-F), “"Point of generation" means the location where waste is initially produced.” |
| 30 | Section D 3 (c) (p. 20) Does DEP have a definition or geographic radius for "surrounding region" that should be considered in the evaluation? | Unless otherwise specified, surrounding region can be assumed to be the Northeast of the United States and Eastern Canada. |
| 31 | Section D 3 (d) (p. 20) Would DEP consider allowing the SO to provide best practices in education and outreach from existing studies and programs, instead of requiring new studies and surveys? | The SO may use a combination of data sources to complete the requirements of Part II (D)(3)(d). All data must, to the greatest extent possible, be Maine-specific. The SO will develop a Program Assessments Plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Department, for each program assessment including the Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment. This plan will include any existing data sources the SO intends to utilize. |
| 32 | Section D 3 (e) (p. 20) The RFP requires that the Needs Assessment analyze contamination at the base material and material type level. This is not required in statute or in rule. Would providing this information through engagement with municipalities and assessing trends across representative audits be a sufficient methodology to address this requirement? Material-specific trends would not be tied back to specific municipalities. | Part II (D)(3)(d)(ii) which discusses the assessments of education required by the SO for the Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment and states the SO must "identify common contamination issues, categorized by base material and packaging type". This requirement relates back to 38 M.R.S. § 2146(3)(A)(7)(d). The SO will develop a Program Assessments Plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Department, for each program assessment including the Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment. Specific methodologies will be approved or adjusted during this review process. |
| 33 | Section D 3 (e) (p. 20) How does DEP define or differentiate systemic vs. regional investment? | Insofar as investment and evaluation needs of the Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment, systemic refers to Maine's recycling system as a whole whereas regional or regional group refers to local regions in Maine such as: Aroostook County, Kennebec Valley, Highlands, Downeast, Midcoast, Lakes and Mountains, Beaches, and Greater Portland. The methodology for making final determinations for regional groups will be developed as part of the SO’s Program Assessments Plan for the Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment and will be reviewed and approved by the Department. |
| 34 | Section D 5 How does DEP envision producers satisfy the "no toxics intentionally added" requirement? What documentation would be required for the SO to collect or audit? | The requirement for producers is expected to be an attestation from their packaging manufacturers confirming the absence of intentionally added toxics as defined in 06-096 C.M.R. ch 428, § 2(N). The documentation will be submitted with the producer's annual report and will not be required until Program Year 3. As part of Producer Report Auditing, the SO will be required to randomly audit producer reported data, including certificates of no intentionally added toxics from material suppliers. The methodology for this will be developed as part of the SOs Program Assessments Plan for Producer Report Auditing and will be reviewed and approved by the Department. |
| 35 | Section E (p. 22) Given the contract would presumably be signed in late 2026, what are the Department's expectations regarding what would need to be reported the first working day of calendar year 2027? Can DEP confirm that the report submitted in 2027 would pertain to activities undertaken by the SO in 2025 or 2026? If 2026, the PRO may not have received all data back from the previous year to provide an assessment. | The first annual report should summarize activities completed during the previous year to the extent possible. Given the expected proximity of contract completion to the annual report due date there may be flexibility in contracting with regard to when the first annual report is due to the Department. A final work plan will be agreed to in the awarded bidder's contract with the Department. |
| 36 | Section E 1 (p. 22) The cover page requirements related to personnel and contact information appear to be beyond what is required. Can DEP provide more information about why all of this information would be necessary for an annual report? | The Department believes the required information identified in Part II (E)(1)(a) both aligns with the requirements of 38 M.R.S. § 2146(5)(A) and is reasonable to ensure transparency between the Department and the SO. The Department will be open to discussion on appropriate measures to protect personnel information with the release of the document to the public. |
| 37 | Section E 3 (b) (i) (p. 22) What specific information is DEP seeking related to the products? It is our understanding that the rules do not require producers to report by product, but by packaging material type and brand. | Part II (A)(2) of the RFP discusses requirements of the awarded bidder's system for producer data collection, Part II (D)(5) of the RFP discusses the awarded bidder's responsibility for conducting producer reporting audits, Part II (E)(3)(b) identifies data points the awarded bidder will specify in their annual report to the Department. If data is not available to be reported in the annual report, then it is not expected in the annual report. Product level data may be available to the awarded bidder from producer compliance audits in accordance with 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 9(E) or if provided by producers when estimating packaging material in accordance with 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 9(D). |
| 38 | Section E 3 (b) (ii) (p. 22-23) When will guidance be available for producers to assess compliance and report to the SO, if producers will be required to provide this information in 2027? | See answer to VSS submitted question 3. |
| 39 | Section E 3 (b) (iii) (p. 23) Will participating municipalities be required to report by packaging material type to allow the SO to report accurately? | In accordance with 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 17(B), participating municipalities will report to the Department by identifying the amounts of each commodity and packaging stream managed by the municipality. In accordance with 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 14, cost studies and their representative audits conducted by the SO will identify which and how much of each packaging material type is present in commodity and packaging streams. |
| 40 | Section E 3 (b) (v) (p. 23) Given that products may enter the supply chain several months or over a year in advance of entering the marketplace and the potential complexity of this analysis (particularly considering that other state EPR fees may also influence producers' packaging decisions), conducting this assessment annually does not seem reasonable. Would the DEP be open to this being done every 10 years (e.g., at the next Needs Assessment, as the statute amendment allows for the SO to propose fee changes at this time)? | In accordance with 38 M.R.S. § 2146(5)(J), the SO's annual report is required to include an assessment of the producer payment schedule's success in incentivizing improvements to the design of packaging material. The methodology for this assessment will be developed as part of the SO’s Program Assessments Plan and will be reviewed and approved by the Department. |
| 41 | Section E 3 (b) (vi) (p. 23) Would DEP consider changing this requirement to state that the SO will provide DEP with a list of brands known to be associated with the producer that are not registered in Maine? The SO is not in a position to state which producers are in compliance or not, as the SO can't be expected to know all brands that produce products for Maine consumers, and for a myriad of reasons a product may have a different responsible "producer" in different states, or simply not be sold in Maine. As DEP is the regulator, our understanding is it would be DEP's role to identify whether a producer is in compliance with the statute or not. It is in the SO's best interest to seek full compliance by producers. Can DEP confirm that this is the case? | In accordance with 38 M.R.S. § 2146(5)(F), the SO's annual report is required to include "a list of producers that are not participating in the program that are required to participate in the program and any product-specific non-compliance, if known by the stewardship organization." The Department is responsible for resolving any compliance issues with producers. |
| 42 | Section E 3 (c) (iv) (p. 23) Can DEP explain the meaning of "packaging material management rates," as it doesn't appear to align with what is in the rules? | In accordance with 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 3(B)(3)(c), the SO's annual report is required to include municipal benchmarking including "statistical analyses showing interquartile range of the tons of packaging material recycled per capita by participating municipalities and the tons of packaging material reused per capita by participating municipalities." |
| 43 | Section E 3 (e) (i) (4) (p. 23) How are the litter management costs by packaging material type supposed to be calculated? | The methodology for this will be developed as part of the SO’s Program Assessments Plan for Litter Audits and will be reviewed and approved by the Department. For more details on Litter Audit requirements, see Appendix H- Program Assessments General/Technical Requirements, requirement number 1.7. |
| 44 | Section E 4 (p. 24) Do funds need to be physically maintained in separate banking and investment accounts for the savings investment plan, PSF for infrastructure and education investments, SO operating costs, and municipal reimbursements, or can funds be commingled and the amounts related to each category (and any corresponding amount of earned interest) tracked offline? | There is no requirement that funds be maintained in separate accounts from one another. The awarded bidder will be responsible for developing and maintaining a stewardship fund operational plan as detailed in Part II (H)(4)(b) of the RFP, following Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. |
| 45 | Section E 5 (b) (ii) (p. 24) Is benefit-cost analysis a preferred measure of investment progress? | Part II (E)(5)(b)(ii) requires the SO's annual report to provide a summary of investments made in the previous year and include a summary of how investments have contributed to the overall program effectiveness, progress toward program goals, and any related cost-benefit analyses. While cost-benefit analyses contribute to this summary, they are not the whole of the requirement. |
| 46 | Section E 5 (b) (ii) (p. 24) Does DEP have an existing framework for benefit-cost analysis, regulatory impact analysis, or other method they prefer the awarded bidder to use to evaluate program effectiveness? | The bidder may propose a method. Program goals described in 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 3(A) provide criteria used to assess program performance. |
| 47 | Section E 5 (b) (ii) (p. 24) Rules state that for proposals for infrastructure that facilitate recycling, the investment will not result in a total cost of more than $2,000 per ton, expressed in January 2021 dollars and adjusted according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index. Please clarify whether this calculation is for pre-processed tons. | This question is outside of the scope of this RFP and will be resolved with the awarded bidder prior to making the investment proposal application public. |
| 48 | Section E 6 (g & h) (p. 26) Can we assume that the Needs Assessment and Disposal Audit Report would only need to be included in the year that they are completed? | Yes. |
| 49 | Section F 1 (p. 27) Will DEP assign dedicated staff to support the technical solution development through discovery, testing, training, and implementation phases? | Maine IT and the Department's IT staff will be involved in all stages of technical solution development, implementation, and deployment. However, the awarded bidder is responsible for delivering a system that meets the requirements of the RFP without a dependency on State staff to be responsible for technical tasks. |
| 50 | Section H (4) (c) (p. 28) This section appears to be contrary to 06-096 C.M.R. Chapter 428, 18(E)(1)(a) which requires two years of municipal reimbursements based on payments made the prior two years, as opposed to projected reimbursements. Can DEP clarify? | The awarded bidder will be responsible for developing and maintaining a Stewardship Fund Financial Plan which is required to describe and provide financial mechanisms used to manage the Fund in a manner that ensures liquidity sufficient to cover no less than two years of projected reimbursements to participating municipalities, ongoing operational expenses, and required administrative payments to the Department, in accordance with 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 428, § 18(E)(1)(a). Projected reimbursements will be estimated from prior year's expenditures. The methodology for this will be developed as part of the Stewardship Fund Financial Plan and will be reviewed and approved by the Department. |
| 51 | Attachment J - Work Plan We notice that there are some dates populated in Attachment J, The Work Plan. They do not appear to align with dates in the RFP. Were these intended to be examples only? | Yes. Bidders are responsible for providing realistic work plans. The Example Work Plan provided with Appendix J is described in Part IV Section III (4) of the RFP and is intended only as an example of how program development and implementation tasks may unfold based on an arbitrary March 3, 2026, contract date. |
| 52 | Section E 3 (p. 35 - 36) This section outlines the required contents for Files 1 through 4, but does not list Appendix L under the files. Could DEP specify which file should contain Appendix L, or confirm if it is provided solely as a template? | Appendix L is not a requirement for bidder submissions, rather it is an example of a template the awarded bidder may use to develop program assessment plans as part of the SO Plan the awarded bidder will develop and maintain as described in Part II (H)(4) of the RFP. |
| 53 | Section III, #4, (p. 39) The RFP notes that the bidder must propose a "realistic work plan for implementation of the program" - does this mean that dates included in the RFP can be amended if they are not considered realistic? | The bidder must propose what they believe to be a realistic work plan based on a September 15, 2026, contract date. A final work plan will be agreed to in the awarded bidder's contract with the Department. |
| 54 | Section III, #4, (p. 39) Does DEP require proposal responses to incorporate Nonvisual Access standards? If so, can you please provide those standards? | Part III of the RFP lists all proposal submission requirements. Accessibility standards beyond what is listed there are not required for the bidder’s submission. |
| 55 | Section IV, #1, (p. 39) Should the cost proposal requested include the SO's projected operating budget and the Department's annual fee - and not producer revenues and payments to municipalities? | The Cost Proposal Form should only include costs for the bidder’s services to the Department. The Proposed Cost listed on the cover sheet for Appendix K is the "Contract Period Cost". The Cost Proposal is not a full accounting of the operational budget of the program. |
| 56 | Section IV, #1, (p. 39) What is meant by "bidder's profit"? If there are subcontractors on the bidder's team, do their profits have to be shown? | Subcontractor costs in the cost proposal will be inclusive of subcontractor profit. The bidder will provide a separate line item in the cost proposal for bidder profit- “Profit (Roll-up).” Profit is a percentage applied to all services including subcontracted services. This should be taken into consideration when filling in the values for Initial Period of Performance Profit % and Renewal Periods Annual Profit %. |
| 57 | Section B, Scoring Weights and Process (p. 41) Could DEP provide more information on the scoring process (e.g., is scoring holistic and across each criterion, rather than itemized)? | Part V (B) describes the process for scoring bidder submissions. Section II, Organization Qualifications and Experience and Section III, Proposed Services, will be scored using a consensus approach where evaluation team members will arrive at consensus on the assignment of points for each section; scoring will be for the section as a whole. Section IV, Cost Proposal will be scored using the formula identified in Part V (B)(3). |
| 58 | Appendix H (p. 54) - Requirement 1.4.1 (page 68) Can DEP clarify what the municipalities are being selected for in this section? | Proposed methods for meeting the requirements of the Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment that require grouping municipalities or regions should consider similar municipality groups and recycling service models. |
| 59 | GENERAL IT Questions -As an SO, is the bidder providing an IT system to the state of Maine for Maine employees to use as part of their day-to-day job, or is the bidder providing an external service (data collection, administration, etc.) to the State? | The Department is procuring both a technical solution for the operation of the Stewardship Program for Packaging and the operational services of the day-to-day operation of the program. The operation of the program will be a primary responsibility of the awarded bidder; this will be done under the direct supervision of the Department. The software application will be used by both internal and external clients. |
| 60 | GENERAL IT Questions - Does the bidder's IT systems fall under the scope of "Executive Branch Agency Information Assets"? | Yes. All applications used to provide the services required by the RFP fall under the scope of “Executive Branch Agency Information Assets” and must comply with OIT Policies and Procedures with special attention paid to System and Services Acquisition Policy and Procedures (SA). |
| 61 | GENERAL IT Questions - Does being selected as an SO mean that all bidder systems built or adapted for this contract will be under Maine administrative control? | Yes, the Department is procuring a technical solution for the operation of the Stewardship Program for Packaging. |
| 62 | GENERAL IT Questions- The Maine RFP identifies that all data and information under this contract are owned by Maine and not the bidder. It is not clear if the systems being developed also are owned by Maine. Can you clarify? | Yes, the Department is procuring a technical solution for the operation of the Stewardship Program for Packaging. |
| 63 | GENERAL IT Questions - How much flexibility does the bidder have to structure the back end and the front end of the integrated digital system including public website, the portals and the field app? | The bidder is responsible for designing and architecting their solution to meet the requirements of the RFP. All technology must comply with OIT policies including accessibility and security and pass OIT Applications Deployment Certification. The Department will work with the awarded bidder to ensure the technical solution meets the needs of the program and complies with the Department’s guidelines for such systems. |
| 64 | GENERAL IT Questions - The Technical Solution Function Requirements section lays out what appear to be required elements for an RFP response. However, in Appendix H if a bidder responds no to any of the requirements, will they be disqualified? | No. From the RFP: “If the requirement cannot currently be met nor met through modifications, the Bidder must indicate “N”. The Bidder must describe how not achieving this requirement will be mitigated in the solution.” |
| 65 | GENERAL IT Questions - Can the bidder phase in certain IT requirements over time? | The bidder should indicate in their proposal any IT requirements that cannot be met for initial implementation and their plan to phase them in. All phased solutions must comply with OIT policies. |
| 66 | GENERAL IT Questions - In the Vendor Self-service System, under criteria, there appears to be some flexibility in terms of what is mandatory. Can you clarify that? | Bidders must attach files to their response in VSS following the instructions in Part III of the RFP. Bidders should respond "Yes" to each criterion listed in VSS (which matches Part V of the RFP) to confirm they have attached the relevant information for each criterion as part of their response. |
| 67 | General legal - Can you describe how Maine intends to handle information that may be considered confidential by the user (producer, service provider) | As stated in the statute (38 M.R.S. § 2146(15), "proprietary information submitted to the Department pursuant to the requirements of this section or the rules adopted pursuant to this section that is identified by the submitter as proprietary information is confidential and must be handled by the Department in the same manner as confidential information is handled under section 1310-B." 38 M.R.S. § 1310-B outlines the procedures and due process the Department utilizes responding to Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) requests for designated information including relevant opportunities for submitters to support claims and appeal any Department determination that designated information is subject to FOAA and must be disclosed. |
| 68 | General legal - Should there be a breach of data confidentiality, who is held liable? | Appendix H- Technical Solution General/Technical Requirements, Section 1.1. Standards and Policies, subsection 1.1.2 and Section 1.13 Security & Privacy Control, detail the requirements and standards an awarded bidder will be held to for data security. Additionally, per Part IV, Section II (7) of the RFP, bidder proposals must include a Certificate of Insurance. |
| 69 | General legal - Can DEP confirm that DEP is the responsible party, as the state agency, in identifying producers that are not in compliance? | See answer to VSS submitted question 41. |
| 70 | General Timeline - We note that the desired start date for this contract is September 15th. If this date is not able to be met, how much flexibility on implementation timelines will there be? If there is flexibility, can DEP share its priorities? | Top priorities once contracting is complete are developing the producer registration system and completing municipal cost studies. Otherwise, bidders may refer to the example work plan to further identify Department priorities. The bidder should propose a realistic timeline for completing all program requirements. The bidder must propose what they believe to be a realistic work plan based on a September 15, 2026, contract date. A final work plan will be agreed to in the awarded bidder's contract with the Department. |
| Bidders Conference Questions | ||
| 1 | Will the State of Maine own the Stewardship Organization's software system, or only the program data? | See answer to VSS submitted question 59. |
| 2 | Are the Stewardship Organization's information systems considered Executive Branch information assets? | See answer to VSS submitted question 60. |
| 3 | What does "administrative control" by the State mean? Will DEP staff directly operate the Stewardship Organization's system? | See answer to VSS submitted question 61. |
| 4 | Will DEP make changes directly to the Stewardship Organization's system? | See answer to VSS submitted question 61. |
| 5 | Can the deadline for submitting bidder questions be extended? | No. The Department acknowledges that the question period is short, but the procurement schedule is fixed, and questions must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. on the published deadline. |
| 6 | When will DEP issue responses to bidder questions? | Written responses will be published at least seven days before the proposal due date, as required by the procurement schedule. If responses cannot be issued by that deadline, the proposal due date would be extended accordingly. |
| 7 | How will confidential producer information be protected? | See answer to VSS submitted question 67. |
| 8 | Can municipalities or service providers designate information as confidential? | It is expected that any data provided by municipalities or their service providers would be publicly available information and therefore will not require confidential designations. See answer to VSS submitted question 5. |
| 9 | Who would be liable if confidential information were improperly disclosed? | See answer to VSS submitted question 68. |
| 10 | Should program performance be tracked by municipality or at the statewide level? | See answer to VSS submitted question 14. |
| 11 | Will DEP expect complete performance data immediately after program implementation? | See answer to VSS submitted question 35. |
| 12 | May the Stewardship Organization subcontract work or coordinate with other organizations? | Yes. Bidders should identify any subcontractors, partners, or other entities that will assist in developing or operating the Maine program in their proposals. |
| 13 | If the desired contract start date changes, what implementation activities are DEP's highest priorities? | See answer to VSS submitted question 70. |
| 14 | How will municipal reporting integrate with the Stewardship Organization's system? | The awarded bidder will be responsible for developing and maintaining a Technical Solution that includes a municipal interface for cost reporting as described in Part II (A)(3) of the RFP. Additional municipal data will come directly to the Department through a system that is currently under development. The Department expects municipal data to be extracted from the State's reporting system and transferred to the Stewardship Organization. During contract implementation, the Department and the Stewardship Organization will work together to configure the necessary interfaces and data exchange processes. |
| 15 | What municipal information will be reported? | See answer to VSS submitted question 39. |
| 16 | When will the municipal reporting system be operational? | The Municipal Recycling Progress Report is expected to be available in the Maine Enterprise Licensing System (MELS) in Spring 2027. |
| 17 | How will municipalities provide data for packaging composition analyses? | See answer to VSS submitted question 39. |
| 18 | Given the RFP schedule, could municipalities be reimbursed based on only one season of cost studies in 2027 instead of two? | See answer to VSS submitted question 24. |
| 19 | What does "recycling service model" mean in the cost study requirements? | See answer to VSS submitted question 20. |
| 20 | How will the 12 annual cost study municipalities be selected? | See answer to VSS submitted question 20. |
| 21 | If representative audits were completed within the last five years, must they be repeated? | See answer to VSS submitted question 12. |
| 22 | Will bidders be disqualified if they answer "No" to certain technical requirements identified in Appendix H? | See answer to VSS submitted question 64. |
| 23 | Can IT requirements be phased in? | See answer to VSS submitted question 7. |
| 24 | Are waivers available for technical requirements? | No. All phased solutions must comply with OIT policies. |
| 25 | Can proposals meet statutory requirements without meeting every RFP requirement? | See answer to VSS submitted question 8. |
| 26 | Does the system need to automatically calculate municipal reimbursements? | See answer to VSS submitted question 65. |
| 27 | Must the proposed solution be a single integrated system? | See answer to VSS submitted question 1. |
| 28 | When will producer and municipal guidance be available? | See answer to VSS submitted question 3. |
| 29 | What guidance is DEP responsible for versus the Stewardship Organization? | See answer to VSS submitted question 3. |
| 30 | What happens if producer funds are insufficient when municipalities are due reimbursement? | See answer to VSS submitted question 16. |
| 31 | Are Rule timelines fixed during the startup year? | See answer to VSS submitted question 70. |
| 32 | How will proposals be scored? | See answer to VSS submitted question 57. |
| 33 | Must producers report packaging that does not typically reach consumers or municipal recycling systems? | See answer to VSS submitted question 4. |
| 34 | May needs assessment results be regionalized instead of reported by municipality? | See answer to VSS submitted question 28. |
| 35 | Must disposal audits and needs assessments be summarized every year? | See answer to VSS submitted question 48. |
| 36 | Should the 10-year budget include only Stewardship Organization operating costs? | See answer to VSS submitted question 55. |
| 37 | Can the budget include only one disposal audit and one needs assessment during the 10-year contract? | Yes. |
| 38 | Who establishes and manages the Stewardship Packaging Fund? | See answer to VSS submitted question 10. |
| 39 | Must operational funds, municipal reimbursements, and investment reserves be maintained in separate bank accounts? | See answer to VSS submitted question 44. |
| 40 | Does the Financial Assurance Plan address minimum capitalization or reserve requirements? | No. The Financial Assurance Plan only describes how remaining funds would be transferred to the Department if the contract were terminated. See answer to VSS submitted question 50 for reference to minimum reserve requirements. |
| 41 | How should the requirement to maintain two years of reimbursement reserves be interpreted? | See answer to VSS submitted question 50. |
| 42 | When should municipalities begin reporting compostable packaging and when would related cost studies begin? | See answer to VSS submitted question 23. |
| 43 | How does supply data factor into municipal reimbursements and producer fee calculations? | See answer to VSS submitted question 21. |
| 44 | Are litter cleanup, education, and outreach reimbursable municipal expenses? | See answer to VSS submitted question 19. |
| 45 | Who is responsible for identifying non-compliant producers? | See answer to VSS submitted question 41. |
| 46 | What level of responsibility does the SO have for identifying unregistered producers? | See answer to VSS submitted question 41. |
| 47 | Can system features that are not needed until later program years (such as PCR waiver automation or excess fund notifications) be deferred? | See answer to VSS submitted question 7. |
| 48 | Is there a minimum score required to receive the contract? | No minimum score is required. However, if no proposal sufficiently meets the RFP requirements, the Department may reject all proposals and issue a new RFP rather than award the contract. |
| 49 | How will organizational qualifications be evaluated? | See answer to VSS submitted question 57. |
| 50 | Will Maine-specific experience receive additional scoring weight? | See answer to VSS submitted question 57. |
| 51 | What product information must be included in the annual report for each participating producer? | See answer to VSS submitted question 37. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP-202605094_Amendment1.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP 202605094 PackagingStewardshipOrganization_Final.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .