Award memoIFB 03614: Hazardous Waste Handling and Disposal Service

Solicitation coordinator: John W Allen III

Contract overviewThe Department of Enterprise Services, with this solicitation and resulting contract, seeks to meet its customers’ need for establishing a statewide service contract for collecting, packaging, removing, transporting and disposing of dangerous wastes as regulated under Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations.

Contract period The initial contract term for the state contract will be for three years from date of award. Maximum term is nine years.

Estimated term worth $5,000,000.00

Contract type ☐ New ☒ Rebid*

☐ NASPO/ValuePoint ☐ General use

☐ Restricted to:       ☒ * Replaces: 03505

WEBS commodity codes

926-45 Hazardous Material and Waste Services

926-77 Recycling Services

968-71 Solid or Liquid Waste Disposal

Bidders notified via WEBS

543

Bid received 3

Bids rejected 1

MWBE goals Veteran-owned-4, Minority/woman-owned-3, Small business-9

Management fee 0.74 percent

Bid developmentStakeholder work Due to multiple changeovers of Contracts Specialists, information is limited prior to

3/31/2014. I have worked with Cathy Moxley developing the rebid and she has provided me as much info as she could regarding stakeholder involvement.

Market research: Based on historical contract usage, dangerous Chemical Waste Handling and Disposal Service section represent about 70 percent, WSDA Pesticides collection section represents about 12 percent and Household Dangerous Waste and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator dangerous waste section represents about 18 percent. State agencies have historically represented about 33 percent of contract activity, Higher Education represented about 43 percent, State of Washington Master Contracts Usage Agreement (MCUA) members represented about 18 percent and State of Oregon Cooperative Members represented about 6 percent.Sales reported during the life of the contract are $14.5 million.

EPP strategy: For the purpose of this contract recycling means processing waste in order to recover

a useable product, regenerate the material or use the waste as an effective substitute for a commercial product. EPP language was included in the solicitation document.Facility reviews include but not limited to regulatory, environmental and financial concerns, such reviews are to determine whether the facility is designed, constructed and managed in a manner that minimizes the risk to human health and the environment, and minimizes pollution liability risk for contract users.

Peer review by: Peer, Melanie Williams, and Supervisor, Corinna Cooper.

Date Project developments and milestones

3/01/2014 Cathy Moxley was assigned the rebid of State Contract 03614 Hazardous Waste Handling and Disposal Service.

3/19/2014 Technical Team meeting: Cathy Moxley led the first technical team meeting for the rebid. The following member attended in person: Joe Hoffman (AGR).

The following members attended on the phone: Matt Moeller (UW), John Reed (WSU), Jason Sampson, Doug Gallucci (UW) and Robert Rieck (Ecology).

During the meeting the team distributed the documents that needed to be reviewed from the current contract.

The Technical Team will be making redline changes to #03505 for incorporation into the new contract. The team has requested we not veer far away from the last solicitation.

The Team determined that the Commodity Codes to be used for WEBS would be: 926-45, 958-96, 926-77, 968-71

Other Telephone Conferences took place on 4/25/2014, 5/09/2014, 7/15/2014, 08/14/2014, 11/04/2014, 11/10/2014

3/20/2014 Mark Bronson from Lewis County joined the Technical Team.

3/26/2014 Cathy met with Mark Gaffney from Ecology to get his perspective on what went well and didn’t go well the last time the contract was written. Mark looked at the project timeline and helped identify steps he had to take last time that need to be done again, such as the facility reviews.

4/25/2014 Gene Clack from Island County Joined the Technical Team.

6/19/2014 Heather Randol from Portland state University joined the Technical Team. The State of Oregon is the 2nd largest user of this contract.

9/11/2014 The Technical Team has identified the changes they wish to make to the solicitation. The Team is working on updating case studies and reviewing the point structure for scoring.. The current contract (03505) expires 6/30/15. The goal for the new contract (03614) is to post the solicitation in November 2015 and have the pre-bid in mid-December 2015.

9/22/2014 Technical Team meeting. Representatives from DES, Ecology, WSU, Agriculture, Island County, Portland State University and UW attended, either in person or by phone.

Key points raised during the meeting:

During the meeting the team reviewed the document progress and updated the team on any major changes.

10/06/2014 The Technical Team has completed their review of the draft solicitation. They have sent all changes to Cathy Moxley and she is in the process of updating the solicitation document. Some changes will affect the scoring aspect so it will necessitate several documents changing. A case study for Category B (WSDA pesticide collection) is being prepared by Joe Hoffman. Once received, it will be incorporated into the solicitation. A target date of December 16th has selected for the pre-bid.

11/12/2014 Further changes needed to the solicitation, competing projects, and staffing shortages have delayed the goal of posting the solicitation to WEBS and the target for the December 16th pre-bid will be rescheduled.

2/04/2015 Christine Warnock approved an extension for contract 03505 until 06/29/2016 or until a new contract is in place.

6/23/2015 John Allen, is assigned as the new Contracts Specialist to lead the contract. There is still quite a bit of work to do and the Technical Team requested more time to review the documents.. The projected plans for the rebid were sent out to the stakeholders on 6/3/15. John Reed requested that we add 8-10 weeks due to the complexity of evaluation and their regular jobs one month is probably not enough time to do this adequately. The other reason for the extra time is they will need 4- 8 weeks for the on-site facility audits visits. A Technical Team meeting will be scheduled to go over changes made to IFB.

10/08/2015 Solicitation 03614 was posted on WEBS. Question and Answer period will be 10/08/2015 through 11/04/2014. Bids are due 11/19/2015.

June 19, 2013 Pre-bid meeting. There were four vendors in attendance and seven Technical Team members at the pre-bid.

During the pre-bid meeting there were very little questions from the vendors. There was feeling amongst the group that the vendors didn’t want to show their hand to their competitors. The meeting only lasted 20 Min. Attached are the meeting minutes and the questions asked during the meeting.

Question and Answer period will be 10/08/2015 through 11/04/2014

I have attached all the questions and answers from the Q & A period.

10/27/2015 Solicitation Amendment 1

Amendment 1 added Lithium Batteries, revised the price sheets and extended the bid due date until 11/19/2015.

11/17/2015 Solicitation Amendment 2.

Amendment 2 updated removed Lithium Batteries from the price sheet and Case Study.

Nov 19, 2015 Bids received. Three responses were received by the bid deadline of 11/19/2015.

All bids were received sealed and on time.

Bids were received from Clean Harbors, Veolia, Stericycle

One bid, Stericycle, was rejected in the initial determination of responsiveness.

Evaluation and award

Bid tabs/Evaluation considerations

Bid tabs

Cost

DES will use the Cost Evaluation Worksheet to determine the Bidder with the lowest evaluation cost. The multiplier factors used in the Cost Evaluation Worksheet are used for evaluation purposes only and are not intended to convey anticipated future usage during the contract period.

Cost Evaluation Worksheet will use the total summed Case Study Worksheet’s costs

from Categories A, B and C, those cost numbers shall be weighted as specified in the Cost Evaluation Worksheet, all applicable discounts and adjustments will not be used to determine the outcome of the cost evaluation, and then the totals shall be summed and used to determine the Bidder’s Total Bid Evaluation Costs. Bidder must completely fill in all prices on cost sheets for all the categories to be considered responsive. Those bids received with incomplete pricing will be considered non-responsive and rejected.

Bidder with the lowest total bid evaluation cost shall receive 100 points and all other bids shall receive a proportionately fewer number of evaluation points based upon the lowest bid. (Example: Lowest Bidder bids $1,000 and receives 100 points. The next lowest bids $1100 or 10.00%* more, shall receive 90.00% of the 100 points (1,000/1100 =.90 x 100 pt. = 90 points) (Calculation Rule: *only carried to two decimal points, there are no negative points, and maximum points in a category are not less than zero.)

During the cost evaluation in Service Area C, Case Study Cost Worksheet it was found that Veolia had miss calculated in their bid causing them to add their Mobilization Fee twice. After reviewing the hard copy of the bid there was no difference in there calculation and the pricing remained at the high cost.

Non-Cost

Non-Cost Factors Evaluation: Evaluation of non-cost factors and the assignment of scoring points shall be performed by a technical evaluation committee. The Department of Enterprise Services (DES) will assemble the evaluation committee. It shall be recognized that the assessment of technical factors found with the, and the assignment of points, is of a technical nature and that such assessments and ratings shall be based upon the committee’s and its member’s best reasoned professional judgment. The Non Cost Factors will be scored based off of the answers given by the bidder in Appendix J.

I was contacted by Joe Huffman (AGR), and he found missing documentation within Category B Case Study Cost Worksheet for Stericycle. Joe and I contacted Stericycle to see if there a possibility that it was located someplace else within the bid. Stericycle reviewed there bid documentation and realized that there was 35 pages missing from Section B. Due to the lack of information from Stericycle their response could not be evaluated for Section B. Therefore, Stericycle didn’t receive a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the total scoring points available for the category and was considered non-responsive and rejected.

Additional Responsibility Check:

No additional responsibility checks were completed. Clean Harbors is the current vendor handling hazardous waste disposal for the state and they are in good standing. They have no performance issues, report usage on time and pay their management fee.

Intent to Award recommendation

Based on the guidelines for award detailed in Section 2 of the main solicitation document, solicitation coordinator recommends naming the following as Apparent Successful Bidder: Clean Harbors

The contract will not be awarded until the completion of the onsite facility review. Anticipated time from Announcement of Apparent Successful Bidder to Award will be 90-120 days.

Notice of Intent to Award

Clean Harbors was notified by email that they were Apparent Successful Bidders on ________.

Facility Audits

Clean Harbors is the Apparent Successful Bidder and they will have their facilities audited.

Any facility that is proposed for use or actually used by the Contractor under this contract. Facility reviews may be conducted at any Primary Receiving and Final Recycling, Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facility (RTSDF) and includes but not limited to transfer, consolidation, storage facilities, and transportation companies in which dangerous waste will be managed under this contract.

Facility Reviews include but not limited to regulatory, environmental and financial concerns, such reviews are to determine whether the facility is designed, constructed and managed in a manner that minimizes the risk to human health and the environment, and minimizes pollution liability risk for contract users. Facility Reviews may include but not limited to off-site facility documentation reviews and on-site facility reviews.

Audit teams:

Audit TeamsJason Sampson sampsonj@wsu.edu Darin Waller dswaller@uw.eduMark Volkert mvolkert@uw.edu Bria Knowles bria.knowles@soundtransit.orgNic Salim salimn@uw.edu Erin McKeown mstoxic@uw.eduNic Salim salimn@uw.edu Don Keon hwt@wsu.eduMatt Moeller maddmatt@uw.edu Dale Silbernagel silbernagel@wsu.eduJohn Wallace xwallace@uw.edu Mark Bronson Mark.Bronson@lewiscountywa.govJohn Wallace xwallace@uw.edu Brenda Nissley bnissley@uw.edu

Audit Locations:

During the Facility Review period all the site visits were completed and no facilities were rejected by the teams.

Debrief On 2/16/2016, Veolia emailed and requested an official debrief conference. The

2/17/2016 debrief took place on 2/17/2016 and the following personnel attended Eric Feist form Veolia, Corinna Cooper (DES), John Allen (DES), Joe Hoffman (DOA), Matt Moeller (UW), Mark Bronson (Lewis County PUB), Maurice Clark (Island County PUB).

The meeting lasted one hour and during that time Eric asked questions with the Stakeholder team on the score he received and the Bid Tab.

Protest No protests were received.

Negotiations No negotiations were conducted with Clean Harbors.

Award recommendation

Based on the guidelines for award detailed in Section 2) of the solicitation document, I recommend an official award be made to Clean Harbors for contract 03614

Signatures

Contract administrator       Date:      

Supervisor       Date: