MODIFICATION
99 -- RFQ-RT-04-00504 Hazardous Waste Disposal
- Notice Date
- 10/22/2004
- Notice Type
- Modification
- Contracting Office
- Environmental Protection Agency, Small Purchase Branch, 79 Alexander Drive/Admin. Bldg., Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
- ZIP Code
- 27711
- Solicitation Number
- RFQ-RT-04-00504
- Response Due
- 10/27/2004
- Archive Date
- 11/27/2004
- Description
- NAICS Code: 562211 This is AMENDMENT #2 TO RFQ-RT-04-00504. The purpose of this amendment is to address specific questions/concerns posed by prospective offeror(s). 1. Is EPA looking for a disposal contractor or a waste characterization contractor? RESPONSE: This effort is for a contractor who can dispose of hazardous and radioactive waste in accordance with the Statement of Work. 2. Does a contract already exist. If so will it be extended RESPONSE: This effort is not a follow-on to an existing contract. 3. In order to get pricing for the mixed waste inventory, the TSDF has requested additional information. Would it be possible to provide %'s for the components? For example, item 20110, what % is kepone and what % is acetone? Also, can the generator provide the waste codes associated with each item? RESPONSE: With respect to the percentages, when a chemical is shown in acetone, it is a very low percentage, perhaps even less than 1%. For all intents and purposes, assume 99% solvent and 1% active ingredient. See EPA Web page(http://www.epa.gov/oam/rtp_cmd/) for the Revised Appendix B which includes waste codes. 4. You propose a 10% hold-back until Certificates of Disposal are issued from land disposal facilities. The mixed waste you offer for disposal cannot be land-disposed. Low level rad waste disposal facilities do not offer Certificates of Disposal because they are not regulated under RCRA Title C (Haz Waste). RESPONSE: EPA reserves the right to hold back 10% until receipt of notification of how, when, and where these wastes have been disposed. Additionally, there needs to be some written assurance from the receiver of the shipment of low-level radioactive waste ("consignee") of how, when, and where those wastes have been disposed and not just received for disposal. 5. Due to the small volume of waste produced at this facility, it is cost prohibitive to pursue direct land disposal (i.e., disposal without intermediate processing via volume reduction techniques such as supercompaction or incineration). This requirement should be deleted. RESPONSE: This requirement can be modified as long as all manifest requirements of 10 CFR 20, Appendix G are met. Proposals will be evaluated on compliance with requirements of 10 CFR 20, Appendix G. 6. You stated that the pick-ups must be performed within 10 days of order receipt. RESPONSE: The intention for placing control dates on timing of pick-up is to avoid inordinate waits. The pick-up date is hereby changed from 10 days of order receipt to 60 days of order receipt. 7. A large technical proposal is not indicated for the relatively small size of the disposal requirement. Waste pick-up services have become routine and an examination of the following suggested documentation should be sufficient to review technical competency. (1) A copy of the Contractor's NRC License; (2) names, addresses and permit numbers for proposed disposal facilities and transporters (there are a very limited number of these that handle low level rad and mixed waste); (3) a statement of qualifications; (4) key personnel resumes; and (5) references. RESPONSE: The suggested Technical Evaluation Criteria is basically a condensation of the Evaluation Criteria outline in the original combined solicitation/synopsis. Therefore, the Technical Evaluation Criteria is hereby revised as follows: Evaluation Criteria The following criteria will be applied in the evaluation of the proposals and the offeror's capability. The first three criteria (Technical Evaluation Criteria) are of equal importance. 1. Offeror's Capability/qualifications statement which includes the following: (1) demonstrated knowledge, qualifications, capabilities, and experience of personnel and the personnel who will be performing under this contract in hazardous and radioactive waste disposal; (2) copy of the offeror's NRC Licence and other current applicable federal/state/local licences, permits related to handling, and disposal of hazardous/ radioactive waste materials and environmental protection. (3) Description of the manner in which offeror intends to reduce volume of waste as well as dispose of the waste. (4) Resumes for key personnel 2. Names, addresses, phone #, contact person, and permit numbers for proposed disposal facilities and transporters. 3. Past performance of the contractor in the handling, transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of radioactive and mixed waste similar to that generated by the AED laboratory. Proposals shall be evaluated on performance under existing and prior (within past 3 years) contracts/subcontracts for work similar to that described in the Statement of Work. The Government's evaluation shall focus on the quality of past performance and level of customer satisfaction. Provide 3-5 references. For each contract/subcontract identified, the offeror shall include a brief synopsis which includes the date the work was performed, the client for whom the work was performed (included client name and telephone number), and a description of the work performed. 4. Proposed Cost
- Record
- SN00698186-W 20041024/041022212218 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |