B08.03 Q&A 08102020.pdf

1. XXXXXX is a SME headquartered in Canada which already has fulfilled contracts with the US Army and US Navy and either has satisfied or will be able to satisfy the requirements listed regarding being actively registered in the System for Award Management (SAM), having no active exclusions, and completing the FAR and DFARS representations and certifications. We have not identified any exclusion of foreign companies in our review of the notice materials, and would just like to confirm that with you before proceeding.

Answer: This requirement is being competed on a “full & open basis with no exclusions”. Barring no statutory reason for an offeror to otherwise not be eligible for award, foreign offerors are permitted.

2. When is the deadline for Questions and Answers? Is there a specified process for the Q&A? I cannot find any information on this in the documents provided.

Answer: Section L has been updated to address the deadline for submission of questions. Questions are due by 11:59am CST 7 August 2020.

3. As a small business we intend to submit a proposal to this request. We note that the work is to be done at the proposers’ facility. We intend to do so, however, our facility that can process up to seven tons/day of hydrocarbon wastes is located in Germany. Will we need to request a waiver to use this facility? All the wastes for the various mixtures would be purchased in Germany, shredded and processed. We can also process the PWP disks. If we are successful and awarded a contract, could they be sent to that location?

Answer: The Government is prepared to ship the disks to any location necessary should a successful awardee be capable of processing them as part of the effort. Since the solicitation clearly stipulates that performance will occur at the offeror’s determined location, there’s no “requirement” to waive as far as a facility or location is concerned.

4. On page 23 of 32, Section 1. Proposal Submission Requirements (e), the instructions explicitly state to physically separate the Offeror’s submission into "two (2) physically separate volumes". The chart on page 24 of 32 however references five (5) volumes. Would you like the Offeror to submit five (5) physically separate volumes (i.e., 5 separate documents attached to the submission email, named using the five (5) volumes on page 24), or would the below be organization be compliant assuming that you would simply like to ensure the Offeror’s pricing is kept completely separate:

Submission Document 1: “Volume I” (Technical Proposal)

- Volume I: Technical Approach

- Volume II: Corporate Experience

- Volume III: Small Business Participation

- Volume V: Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations

Submission Document 2: “Volume II” (Pricing Proposal)

- Volume IV: Price

Answer: Section L has been updated to correct this mistake. The submission should be separated into five (5) separate volumes.

5. The system that we currently have engineered is larger than the 10 TPD referenced in the RFP.

It is possible for us to re-engineer to a smaller size, but we would not have sufficient time to do so and cost prior to the RFP deadline. Would it be acceptable for us to submit the system we have for technical review with the understanding that we may need to adjust the size and price if we were successful.

Answer: The Government cannot prevent an offeror from submitting a proposal, however any proposal that does not meet the minimum research objectives would not be deemed technically acceptable.

There is no opportunity for a proposed solution to be adjusted and re-priced at a later date because that would violate the Competition in Contracting Act.

6. Is it 4 recipes for a total of 13 times, or a total of 13 variations of the 4 recipes?

Answer: 4 recipes for a total of 13 times over a period of 14 days.

7a. It says the Government anticipates the testing to represent a fourteen (14) day period, is that supposed to be 13 recipes are tested in 14 days, or each recipe should be tested for 14 days. 2b. Also, do they want continuous operation or a certain tonnage?

Answer: 7a. There are 4 recipes outlined in the RFP Attachment C. The recipes are to be tested over a period 14 days: a) the "standard mix" recipe should be tested 4 times, b) the "challenge one paper and sludge" should be tested 3 times, c) the "challenge two food" should be tested 3 times, and d) the "challenge three plastics" should be tested three times.

7b: Ideally the interest is for a system that can efficiently and economically handle small quantities of waste, 1 to 4 tpd and not to exceed 10 tpd. As long as the waste that is continuously fed falls within these parameters and does not exceed 10 tons in one day then it is OK.

8. Does the system need to a be a commercially available unit, or is a research unit acceptable?

Answer: The more capable the system, the greater our interest in the system, but a research unit is acceptable, provided it meets the parameters specified in the RFP

9. The solicitation specifically targets solutions which do not require pre-processing of the waste streams. What does pre-processing mean in this context? We see pre-processing as describing two possible operations:

* Manual pre-sorting of waste constituents before they reach the WTE system.

* Pre-processing as an internal step within the WTE system, meaning as an automated processing stage once the waste has entered the system.

Answer: Pre-processing refers to the prep-work required to prepare the waste for input into the WTE system. This includes: shredding (i.e. a separate shredder that would need to be purchased in addition to the WTE system), manual pre-sorting, and any type of waste prep system that would need to be purchased in addition to the WTE technology. However, if the pre-processing is an internal step that is automated and built into the WTE system, i.e. such that the system allows for direct input of waste (waste-as-is out of a dumpster), without any prep of the waste, than that is a system that is considered NOT to require pre-processing.

10. Are the four waste compositions outlined intended to be processed as comingled streams or as individual material charges? From our experience, waste compositions can be formulated in two scenarios:

* Pre-mixed, evenly distributed waste components to maintain consistent waste composition charged to the system.

* Uneven distributions of single waste components to the system which represent likely scenarios of waste generation (i.e. load of 100 lbs of cardboard at once, followed by a load of food waste, etc.), however the total charge to the system would represent the composition as defined in the solicitation.

Answer: Ideally the system should be able to handle mixed waste together, i.e. waste mixed in no particular order (as if taken straight from the disposal area/dumpster), but still accurately representing the percentages of waste materials outlined in the recipes and with as little preparation as possible.

11a. Sewage sludge is a listed component of waste mix #2. Is there any further detail on the makeup of the sludge itself, such as the intended moisture vs. solids content? 11b. Also, has there been any simulated production of test material which is not actual sludge, but represents its properties accurately and is logistically easier to acquire?

Answer: a. Please consider using sludge with a moisture content that ranges between 30% to 50%.

b. No

12. Wood is a required constituent in all four waste mixes. What form factor or type of wood is expected to be tested? Some examples would be plywood sheets, framing materials (2x4s, wooden posts, etc.), or wood chips/debris.

Answer: Mainly wood pallets, framing materials, woody debris/green waste

13. Steel is a required constituent in all four waste mixes. Like wood, steel could be processed in many form factors such as steel plates, screws/fasteners, bearings, and others. Is there a required form factor to be used for testing?

Answer: All mentioned here are acceptable including scrap steel

14. Can a more specific definition of hazardous materials be provided? We see hazardous waste as potentially encompassing a range of materials, such as oil soaked rags, large quantities of liquid wastes (oils, solvents, etc.), or items such as medical waste.

Answer: All mentioned here are acceptable. But the more expansive the system is with respect to the handling of hazardous waste the better. Thus, if you could provide a list of the different types of hazardous waste the system can handle, it would be appreciated.

15. Is the expectation that this RFP will result in a single award or will multiple awards be contemplated?

Answer: This acquisition will be solicited on the basis of awards resulting from tradeoffs, with the potential for multiple awards being dependent on the value of proposals and the availability of funds.

16. What is the estimated date for source selection determinations?

Answer: Early-Mid September

17. What is the anticipated project start date?

Answer: 30 September 2020

18. What is the expected contract length and cost?

Answer: Schedule and Cost are to be proposed.

19. The USACE ERDC-CERL solicitation for small scale WTE research does not specify what Air Emission Regulations the solutions being offered needs to comply with. Please confirm that the WTE solution will be required to meet US EPA Standards of Performance for OSWI. If not please state what compliance needs to be met.”

Answer: The small scale WTE research has to comply with all relevant federal regulations and has to comply with all state and local regulations relevant to the state and local area in which this research will be performed.

20. With regard to Evaluation Factor 2, if projects are extremely relevant to the project and meet all other criteria of the solicitation but were completed earlier than 5 years can the 5 year time frame be waived?

Answer: No waivers are possible under competitive procedures. All proposals must comply with the solicitation in order to be further considered for technically evaluation.

21. As a follow-up question to your answer for number 19 (below in blue). Regulations are highly variable among different states and countries. The local regulatory limits may dictate different required air pollution control technologies and/or may require the inclusion of a broad range of Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS). These additional systems will have a major impact on capital and operating costs. Given that this is site-specific to the research project location, and may not be representative of regulations imposed on an actual naval installation, should these additional components be excluded from the NPV calculations?

Answer: Do not exclude from NPV, but feel free to identify the individual costs for the additional components.

22. What is the deployment plan? In other words, how long after a successful completion of the proposed project do you expect deployment of 1-4 TPD units in the field?

ANSWER: We are not planning to deploy it

23. Related to Question 1- What is your expected TRL of the system to be tested under the proposed effort?

ANSWER: The more functional and ready-to-use the better.

24. What portion of the proposed effort can be Research and Development versus fabrication and testing?

ANSWER: Whatever it takes to provide a WTE system that is capable of converting 1-10 tpd of waste to energy. Preferably electricity.

25. Is there a tipping fee guidance or cost avoidance data source that we can use in the NPV calculations?

ANSWER: You can use an average tipping fee of $50/ton. All numbers used in calculations should be itemized.

26. Have you identified NPV target parameters that would result in a highly favorable rating?

ANSWER: The NPV has to be above $0.00

27. The ship and ground condition NPV parameters are significantly different from one another. What is the priority application and/or the breakdown in the applications?

ANSWER: Consider the ship and ground conditions to be that of a fixed Army installation in the contiguous US with average accessibility (i.e. there are roads, waterways and rail that reasonably access this location). Consider footprint conditions to be hard stand and 20% larger than the actual unit installed.

28. Due to all the elements involved in this proposal, and the current situation with Covid-19, we are asking for the submittal deadline to be extended 4 weeks to 4:00 PM CST, September 11, 2020. On that same premise, we are asking the Q&A deadline to be extended 2 weeks to 4:00 PM CST, August 21, 2020.

ANSWER: The submittal deadline and the Q&A deadline cannot be extended.

29. In reference to #3 in the Q&A, considering that any system would not be ready to test until next year, and based on the science and medical advancements, COVID-19 will not present any issues for our company by the time testing starts. For this reason, we would like to ship, install and test this unit at your military facility. (A) With this plan in mind, what is the location of your facility? The location is important for estimating shipping and permit costs. (B) Does the building already exist that the test unit will be installed in or will it be a new building? (C) If the building exists, can we get a layout? The layout of final destination is important for estimating installation costs.

ANSWER: This is a non-starter. It cannot be tested at our facility.

30: If the military insists the unit be tested at our location, (A) what is to be done with the system at the end of the 14-day test period? (B) After testing, are we to uninstall, ship and reinstall at another location? After installation, you must commission the system before you can test, which includes curing of the refractory. Once a system is installed and the refractory is cured, the process of decommissioning, uninstalling, transporting, and reinstalling will greatly affect the systems life and cause probably damage. In particular, once the refractory is cured it becomes brittle and transporting it is likely to cause the refractory to crack or break. In addition, changing locations would require a whole other set of permits. For these reasons, we recommend testing at your facility.

ANSWER: A) That is up to you. The system belongs to you, and the Government is not procuring the system as a part of this requirement; B ) No, and we will not be testing this system at our facility.

31. Will the government assist in obtaining the permits?

ANSWER: No

32. In reference to #7a in the Q&A, what is the minimum each individual test composition should weigh? This is important for estimating cost of waste during testing.

ANSWER: Take the tonnage per day and divide by the percentages specified in each recipes.

33. Why can we only list a total of 3 projects as a reference in Volume II? We believe we should be able to show more than 3 to properly present our experience as long as we don’t exceed the 10 page requirement. (B) If we are including a partner/subcontractor in the proposal, can we then provide 3 projects each in the reference section?

ANSWER: Corporate experience is limited to 3 relevant projects due to expectation of numerous proposals. The corporate experience is a reflection of the vendor who submitted the proposal.

34. What are the terms of payment? (B) Will you consider progress payments in this project?

ANSWER: No, progress payments are not available for this contract. The payment terms will look something like the following: Invoices shall be submitted monthly along with the Contractor’s monthly progress report. Invoices will cover the period of activity described in the accompanying progress report. With reference to section G Clause No. 252.232-7003, ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PAYMENT REQUESTS, at the Contractor's Option he may, (a) upon completion of the work, submit one invoice for payment of the entire amount due under the contract in one lump sum, or (b) submit estimates of the amount and value of the work and services performed under the contract at any time during the period of performance, but not more frequently than once a month or for amounts less than $1000 (unless a final invoice). Procedures for submitting partial invoices under (b) above are as follows:

Upon approval of such estimate by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR), partial payment upon properly certified invoices will be made to the Contractor as soon as practicable of the amount determined to be due, less all previous payments.

Upon completion by the Contractor of the work to be performed under the contract, acceptance of such work by the Government, and receipt of DD Form 882 (reference Section I, Clause 252.227-7039), the Contractor will be paid the balance of any money due for work performed.

35. (A) Where in the pricing mechanism, i.e. CLIN 001 or in the pricing volume, do the CDRL pricing get included?

ANSWER: The whole effort is being priced as a single job, so the pricing associated with the CDRLs should simply be rolled up with the overall price. Breaking down the cost/price associated with the CDRLs for the sake of the price volume of the proposal is perfectly acceptable, but not required.

(B) What is the difference between CDRL 2B and CDRL 3A? They seem very similar.

ANSWER: 2B is a Plan, so that would be describing how you will do something. 3A is a Report, so that would describe what you completed and the results of the tests. Each CDRL has a subtitle, so please ensure that you are clear on what each CDRL is representing.

(C) If the CDRL is to be used as reference, then we are to just include it in Volume I and part of one total price?

ANSWER: The draft CDRLs are intended to make clear what the Government expects to get as deliverables. Revised CDRLs could be proposed if the offeror deems it appropriate. The expected deliverables are necessary pieces of information for any offeror that would need to ensure they account for everything from a performance, price, and schedule perspective.

36. (A) In reference to CDRL 5a, what is the period of service?

ANSWER: The POP is up to the offeror to propose based on the approach and schedule that makes the most sense for the proposal.

(B) If testing is 14 days, which we assume occurs after installation and commissioning, and a draft final report can't be written until after testing is complete, but must be given 30 days before end of service, that means the period of service would exceed more than 30 days after testing? When would be the end of service date?

ANSWER: The POP is up to the offeror to propose based on the approach and schedule that makes the most sense for the proposal. The Government is not limiting the POP, the POP has to make sense with the proposed approach.

37. Page 2 of the SOO states “Ability to process between 1 and 4 TPD MSW economically”. What are the parameters to establish “economically”?

ANSWER: The process of converting waste to energy has to result in a positive NPV, i.e. a value above $0.00

38. Page 2 of the SOO states “Ability to produce electricity as the energy output”. In addition to electricity, are you interested in other forms of energy recovery such as hot water or steam?

ANSWER: The preferred output is electricity

39. For calculating the NPV… (A) What are the current tipping fees? (B) What are the current waste storage costs for the military? (C) For calculating the electrical return for NPV, what per kWh rate should we use? (D) Does the military get special rates for fuel for us to use in our calculation? (E) Should we consider cost of water usage? It is important that all bidders use the same costs/parameters to properly evaluate and compare NPV.

ANSWER: A) You can use an average tipping fee of $53/ton; B) Do not worry about the military waste storage costs; C) Use $0.10/kWh, D) Just use regular pricing for commercial fuel E) Yes, include pricing for water

40. How will the results of this project be used? Will the results of this project directly inform a future acquisition of a WTE system for a naval facility, or are the results to inform future R&D efforts?

ANSWER: Both

41. Will the government consider a longer test window to conduct the 13 plus test runs if the proposing contractor can justify that an extended period will produce better data of the WTE system under test?

ANSWER: The most favorable number of days to conduct the 13 plus runs is 14 days as stated in the

SOO.

42: NIST Handbook 135 states that LCC calculations weighing alternatives should be made with the same assumptions. How will Government weigh or normalize each proposed NPV calculation?

ANSWER: A favorable NPV is one in which the calculations used to derive the NPV are itemized, logical/reasonable and defensible, and result in a positive NPV.

43: In light of Covid work restrictions, will government consider a 7 day extension to 21 August?

ANSWER: The submittal deadline and the Q&A deadline cannot be extended.