RFI UK-Wide Integrated Waste Management Services

RFI 2 Questions and Answers 1. For mixed hazardous waste, it would be beneficial to obtain a breakdown of individual streams (including EWC codes, as mentioned in the documentation), to ensure you receive representative pricing that reflects each of the waste streams. Description EWC Code Oily water from Bunds and Oil Water Separators (OWS) 13 05 07 Aircraft wash detergent water 16 10 02 Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) 16 10 01 2. It would be advantageous to receive information on what equipment is owned by the incumbent contractor and any owned equipment operated by the existing contractor teams. This will enable bidders to identify which are due to be replaced and potential risk assessments that must be carried out on owned equipment. This information will also help to ensure the correct equipment is proposed and accounted for in the submission. The equipment owned by the incumbent would be considered proprietary information and therefore cannot be provided. Offerors are responsible for proposing their own technical solution, including the equipment needed to meet the requirements of the Performance Work Statement. 3. It would also be beneficial for HR teams to receive ELI data as part of the Tender process, however we understand this is highly confidential and would suggest it is sent directly to HR representatives for review. We would suggest you request the contact details of HR teams as part of the RFI process, to help this to take place smoothly. This information will help bidders to accurately determine the cost associated with labour provisions. We have requested the incumbent’s HR representative’s information and are awaiting their response. For further guidance on how the TUPE process will be handled, please refer to Sections L and M. 4. Can International Catering Waste be its own separate CLIN? Yes, the Government plans to update the PWS and Attachment 2, Offer Sheet, which will incorporate these changes. 5. Additional clarification on expectations for partial service performance during mobilization, if any, versus full operational capability at contract start may further reduce ambiguity. The mobilization period of 60 days is provided for the follow-on contractor to prepare to meet all requirements of the PWS. During these 60 days, no service performance is required from the -- 1 of 6 -- incoming contractor. The incumbent contractor will continue to provide full performance until the expiration of their contract. The new contractor must be at Full Operational Capability (FOC) on the contract start date of 1 May 2027. 6. The Past Performance relevancy criteria clearly communicate the Government’s expectations regarding scope, scale, and complexity. Clarification on whether relevancy thresholds (e.g., regions, FEL counts, liquid waste volumes, contract value) may be satisfied cumulatively across multiple references, as opposed to individually per contract, may assist offerors in presenting the most relevant experience. These will be evaluated on a stand-alone basis. Offerors may not cumulatively combine multiple references to meet the relevancy standards for scope, magnitude and complexity. Each contract reference must individually meet the relevancy criteria outlined in the solicitation to be considered relevant. 7. Clarification confirming that offerors may account for anticipated cost escalation within their fixed prices for option years, as referenced in Government feedback, is helpful. Additional confirmation that pricing is required for all line items at proposal submission would further eliminate ambiguity. You are required to propose a price for all of the line items. 8. Clarification on how “Not Applicable” responses will be considered during evaluation particularly when certain performance elements were not applicable to prior contracts may improve consistency across evaluations. The requirement for questionnaires to be submitted directly by customer references is clearly stated and understood. Performance elements rated as 'Not Applicable' by a customer reference will be considered neutral and will not be viewed negatively for that specific element. However, as this is a performance price tradeoff procurement, the overall relevance of an offeror's past performance is a key consideration. While a reference will not be penalized for an 'N/A' rating, such a rating also does not help demonstrate experience in that particular area. A reference that closely mirrors the scope and complexity of the current requirement will likely be considered more relevant and provide a greater level of confidence than a reference with multiple 'Not Applicable' elements. Ultimately, the Government will assess a final past performance confidence rating based on the recent and relevant data provided by each offeror. -- 2 of 6 -- 9. Clarification on whether the listed workload figures represent historical averages, projected estimates, maximum planning values, or blended assumptions would assist offerors in evaluating performance risk. Confirmation that these figures are estimates only and not guaranteed quantities would further support consistent interpretation among respondents. As stated in Appendix A and in the pricing schedule, the workload figures provided are estimates. These estimates are based on historical data and are for offeror planning and pricing purposes only. They are not a guarantee of the minimum or maximum quantity of work that will be ordered under the contract. 10. Additional clarification on how temporary increases in service demand such as exercises, deployments, or special events are categorized (routine services versus over-and-above requirements) would assist offerors in planning staffing, equipment availability, and pricing assumptions. Due to Operational Security (OPSEC), the Government cannot provide forecasts for temporary increases in service demand from exercises or special events. Therefore, offerors shall base their proposed pricing on the estimated…