Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 DraftRFPGrbage&Recycle (2) CITY OF DUBLIN AGEN DA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE. LJA~9~ 23, 1995 SUBJECT: Garbage and Recycling Services Draft Request For Proposal f,~(and Draft Agreement Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1. Draft Request For Proposal (RFP) (Excluding the Draft Agreement For ~e'~i~e~) ]Blue Document] Preliminary Draft Agreement For Integrated Waste Management Services [Yellow Document] 3. Comparison of Solid Waste Service ~Options 4. Summary of Key Terms of Draft Agreement Summary of Proposed Rate Adjustment Methodology Excerpt from City Council Minutes of the City Council Meeting of September 12, 1994. Copy of Survey Prepared and Distributed by BFI Waste Systems. Summary of Citizen Responses Received By City From BFI Waste Systems Survey Letter From BFI Waste Systems dated January 9, 1995 Summarizing Responses Received by BFI RECOMMENDATION: (1) //~ (2) (3) (4) (5) Receive the Staff presentation and information from the Consglt~nt~ Provide input on any desired changes to the Draft RFP including the alternative services or options presented.(e.g. Curbside Garbage Collection Option, Plastic Recycling Option, etc.) Provide input on the RFP Evaluation Criteria, Provide input and direction on any requested changes to the basic terms presented in the Preliminary Draft Agreement. Provide Staff with direction on th~.d~st~r~b~g!i_ep 9.~.!~..gequest For Proposal. Options which may be considered include: limiting the distribution to only the current provider; or solicit proposals from throughout the industry. Staff will proceed with the release of the RFP significantly in the form approved by the City Council. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The City will be seeking proposals for a firm to provide services for an initial 7 year period. Based upon the current cost of garbage and recycling services the cost of this agreement over the ne~xt 7 years is estimated to exceed $17,000,000. DESCRIPTION: At the City Council meeting of October 24, 1994 the City Council authorized Staff to obtain Consultant Services. from Hi!~o~n.~_ay~opf & Hobson (HF&H). The Consultant has assisted Staff with identifying Goals and Objectives to be accomplished under the new Waste Franchise. Based upon this input as well as industry standards the Consultants havedeye!oped a Draft Request For Proposal (RFP). Once Staff receives additional directio_n ~from.$~h~Cj~ty Council, the next step in the procurement process is to obtain a proposal from garbage/recycling service providers. The City of Dublin currently receives these services from Waste Management of Alameda County. The major terms associated with the Garbage Collection and Disposal Agreement were originally adopted by the City Council in 1986. In the past 5 years the City has negotiated with WMAC separate agreements ITEM NO. ~ COPIES TO: L. Scott Hobson, Hilton Farnkopf& Hobson Dan Borges, Livermore Dublin Disposal Bonnie J. Moss, BFI W,~ ~ ......... FILE ...... for Residential Recycling services. The initia!~term.0f~ al._Lagreements with WMA~C~.,expire on March 31, 1996. The City has established as .,a_.~target date June 30, 1995, to have in place the terms and services to be provided beginning April 1, 1996. PURPOSE OF DRAFT REOUEST FO~ PROPOSAL The Request For pr°POSal' ail0Ws the' Ci~h~i~d~hn'ity t0-1~dentif~h~ty~'gS' 6f services to be provided and minimum se~r~i~e._,~s~t~ndards. T~R~..,~P~iss~uct~u~~ provide a potential bidder(s) with the following data: · · · · · A Description of the process to be used to procure the services. A Description of how services are currently provided. Guidelines as to the.~or~t~,a~o~ s~e~ic~.~s to .?~a?~ An explanation as to the criteria used to ~ey~[g~g~gbe proposals. A Draft Agreement to be used in negotiating with the selected bidder.(See Staff Report Exhibit 2) The document has been structured i~equate detail to allow the Consultant to review ,~he proposal(s). Also, if multiple proposals are received the RFP attempts to provide for comparisons on a standard set of services. The document describes the types of services in general terms and allo~s the proposer to recommend the method t.hey intend to use. For example, new technologies allow for a split collection vehicle which may handle both recyclables as well as solid waste. There are also differences in the methods used to collect recyclable materials. The RFP .a!!o~s~,.~_~.~City to challenge those submitting proposals to present innovative solut~0n~jn~gst~9~tive manner~~.~ .............................................................. The RFP is presented in a Draft formot at this ~i~,~.tg~,9~~.~.~ty Council and public input on the array of services, on which the City will obtain pricing proposals. Once the document is issu~d.~oO.~!,~ modifications or clarifigati09,~,~ay be made to the document. Typically this occurs in response to inquiries from those responding to the RFP. SUMMARY OF KEY SERVICE OPTIONS SOLICITED IN THE RFP RFP ~'~'~r~ii~a~.e~~ th~idde~ t~ address a~~l o~ th~ se~~ices .... cur~ ¥~h~y~hse~-d~l~T ........ As a starting point the g the City. Exhibit 3 summarizes the options and major service levels incorporated in the Draft RFP. The following discusses in more det~i!3h~.gey options. The City will retain the sole ability to select among the options in preparing a Final Agreement. Residential Garbage Collection Options The City currently has what is referred to as ',Backyard Service." This means that the~re~j~.~ly required to have the garbage container outside of the home.and i~n..dg~se proximity to the structure. The location must also be fully accessible to the collector. As noted in the RFP a significant number of customers already put their cans at the curb. "Backyard Service" is labor intensive due to the need for the crew to walk all the way up to the house. As an Option, the City will seek cost proposals to provide "Automated Service". This system is more capital intensive due to the fact that the Company provides containers and there are increased operating/maintenance costs associated with the lifting device. The system will also require the customer to wheel 'the container to the curb. However, in addition to labor savings from a smaller crew size, this system also improves worker safety. The mechanization can significantly reduce worker's compensation related costs due to lifting injuries. In 1991, the City of Dublin participated in a study conducted by the Joint Refuse Review Committee, which suggested that automated service could.~rcd~¢~i~.~gs~t~s~9~m,~,~0~ 65%. The cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon currently use automated collection vehicles for at least one element of theirresiden~ti~l garbage or recycling service. By obtaining pricing alternatives the City will be able to determine whether there wou!~, be a benefi~ ~o changing the method of collection. The proposal also requests that the Company identify an alternative method for: hard to service areas; senior citizens; and handicapped residents. Options To Change The Frequency Of Special Clean-ups Residential customers in the City currently receive a total of 4 special clean-ups. This is a very popular program and volumes of waste collected have ~confinue~,_tg.o i~c~r,e?~e,~ac~b year. For reasons of public health and safety it is important that residents are not encouraged to stockpile waste. The composition of the waste collected a~. t,~,es~e~e, ye_.n~,~j~s~gften landscape debris. In the event that ~h~...~ty may implement a new "Green Waste Collection, program", it may be Possible to reduce th~.n~m~er~i~f~_Special Clean-ups. The RFP will obtain th~ ~i~,~f~e~,e~,,t9! c~9,~t~, 3, and 4 clean-ups per year. Expand Recyclable Materials Collected By Curbside Program The current curbside recycling program provides residents with the ~opportunity to recycle the following materials: 1. Newspaper 3. 2. Glass 4. Aluminum, Tin and Bi-metal cans PET grade plastic containers The design of the current program was structured to target commodities which would move. the City towards the State mandated diversign goals in a cost effective~manner~..!~. ~t~ng diversion goals the State has increased the public awareness of recycling. Unfortunately, the public perception of the cost of these programs are not always realistically understood,_ Th,_e.,c~!~tio,~_a~n~d processing of recyclable material result in real costs. In the past the City has attempted to weigh the program cost against the amount of waste Based upon inquiries from residents, Staff has suggested that the incremental cos~ ~9~bt~,i~,~,o~,~ expanding the curbside recycling program. The first option would include other types of mixed paper and magazines (i.e. phone books, junk mail, etc.) The second option would include HDPE plastics. HDPE plastics are the type used for milk containers and other consumer goods. The technology currently requires different methods to recycle each different grade of plastic. PET plastic is the grade included in the current City program. There is a strong market for this grade of plastic in the recycling industry. PET plastic is designated with a number 1 on the. bottom and is the type used in plastic soda bottles, Beco~egf.,t.~e~.~s~trg~ger markets some manufacturers have expanded the types of goods packaged in PET plastic. In the past Staff has obtained i~f0~n~r~m_~the Co_mpany about including HDPE plastic. Among the constraints noted by the company were the additional labor~e0sts~ t0 ~C01~g.,~O~,~pparate the added commodity along with the low resale value in current markets.~ It was n, gt~ t~h~.~_c~:0ntain~.~9~,~fe~ lo~g, 8 feet wide, and 8 feet high filled with plastic milk jugs would generate approximately $20 in redemption value. This would not b~,._~gquate to offset the additional eol!e~.fig, n~,~_a~d processing costs and would contribute very little to the total tonnage diverted from the !and~fi!!,. By including this as a separate option, the City will be able to have a more quantitative basis to determ~!~cw~h~.t~h.e~g.,~.~E grade plastic should be added tO the.~Re~.~.~e~0~ia~._~l~R~ecycling Program. Commercial Recycling Program Currently the City does not sponsor a commercial recycling program. Staff does assist the bus~n,~s~ community in identifying recycling opportunities provided by various vendors in the area, The RFP will request that the Company submit a proposal on this activity. The implementation would be solely at the City's option. Residential Green Waste CoHec~0n The adopted City of Dublin Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) identified a Residential Green Waste program as one method to address the. statedm~tg,~ goal of reducing waste by 50% by the year 2000. The RFP request cost information for both a weekly service and a biweekly service. It is anticipated that the program would utilize containers provided by the Company and they would be responsible for handling the processing and end use of the green waste. The program also requests that Christmas tree collection be offered.~ It is anticipated that the 384 Townhouse units w0uld,~e~g~lg0~$~d~rg~m t~hjs program. These households have individual service, however, due to the small amount of yard space it is not anticipated that these residents would benefit from this program. The following Townhouse projects are affected: NAME ~ # Units K&B CaliforniaVistas ............... ~i!yergate ~ Rolling Hills 129 Arbor Creek (Townhouse Only) Silvergate ~ San Ramon Rd 44 Heritage Co mmons South end Stagecoach Road 73 Woodlands Townhouse West of Alamo CreekP~k Staff would request that the City Council provide additional input on the range of services and programs which shouM be included in the Request For Proposal (As shown in Exhibit 3.) EVALUATION PROCESS On pages 28 and 29 of the Dbat~ti_~~ (E~hibi! 1)~ ilie'-coiisultafit_ has ~o~!~dd~J~'factors which will be used in evaluating the proposals. Once the proposals are received the Consu!~nt?i~]L~jS~.~t~f~)~E ............................... preparing an overview of key criteria. In the event that more tha~,~,~ proposal is received interviews will be conducted with selected finalists.~ Based ~t~e~:9,~.Pt~e~.~)~s process Staff will present to the City Council a recommendation on the fir~.,~p proceed to detailed negotiations. The City Council may wish to provide additional input on the Evaluation Criteria and any changes or elements which shouM rqceiv¢9 greater priority. Preliminary_ Draft Agreement The RFP will also inc!ud~.a~.~.~mjRary Draft Agreement(Staff Report Exhibit 2). The City Council is not being requested to approve the Agreement at this time. The "Draft,! .ha~.be~eg,.~g~~ part of the RFP process, in an effort to expedite the negotiation phase. The proposal(s) submitted will be required to identify any exceptions taken to the Draft Agreement. The Agreement is significantly more detailed thao the current Agreement to address changes in the industry over the past 10 years. It will also consolidate the separate agreements for solid ~as~,~d~.~ecycling into a single agreement. Key terms included in the Draft Agreement are attached as EXHIBIT 4-. The Draft Agreement provides for an initia! ter~o~_7 years. This is followed by three 1 year extensions, which may be granted at the City's discretion. The term ~f~e~..~i~i3~greement is structured~.~Q~r~ ................... that the Operator can fully amortize all of the necessary Capital Costs. The Provider is a!~9~.required to obtain guaranteed landfill capacity for the term of the agreement. The Draft Agreement differs from current practice in the manne~in~hjg,~xa~t~,9.~djustments are calculated. The current process demands a great deal of Staff time. The first two years of the Agreement will provide the Company with revenues based upon their proposal. Beginning with the third year of the agreement, the new format will rely upon adjustments made by calculating formulas from estab!J~he~ .................... indexes. A summary of the Proposed Rate Adjustment Methodology is presented in Exhibit 5. The Company would still be allowed to regoger."pass through" fees. For example, the County imposition of a Business License Tax was a regulatory pass through fee. The Draft Agreement also specifies key criteria associated with monitoring the level of service provided. A key component of the Draft Agreement is a request for the Company to indemnify the City against fines or penalties imposed by the Integrated Waste Management Board, in conjunction with mandated diversion goals. This clause puts the Company in a more responsible position to quantify and implement programs which will allow the City to successfully meet its AB 939 diversion requirements. Staff would request that the City Council identify any terms or conditions thatshouM be modified in the Draft Preliminary Agreement. A Final Agreement for consideration by the City Council will not be presented until after final negotiations with a selected vendor~ DISTRIBUTION OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - (Sole Source Negotiations or Competitive Bid) At the City Council meeting of September i2, 1994 Staff recommended to ~the City C°fiiicil that the City should develop a competitive process to procure solid waste services. Although State Law allows the award without competitive bidding it was noted that there were factors supporting a competitive process. The City had received inquiries from other firms and ac~ompetitive process would provide a benchmark to demonstrate that under.~th~_.~m~t~iryear agreement, the consumer would receive cost effective se~ices~. At the September 12, 1994 City Council Meeting, the City Council received presentations from.Waste ........ Management and BFI as well as ot~o_gfthe~ ~ublic. The direction provided by the City Council was that the city'~u-~]d--~oceed With direct n~'~t~i~0~ ~Gi~h Li~0Y~Dublin Disposal. (See Exhibit 6) This~firmis operated as a division of Waste Management Alameda County. At a subsequent City Council Meeting, Councilmember Burtg~ny~quested an opportunity to reconsider the process used to procure the revised garbage franchise services. The nature .~heD~aft~ Request For Proposal discussed in th~.~fi~ portion of this report, is appropriate to use whether the City Council desires to utilize "sole source negotiations" or a "competitive process." Comoaris.o.n of Procurement Alte~n?ti,~es , , Staff-has discussed with ti~~ ~g~n~t~~~i~i~'d~'~i~gion' factors ~vhich would favor one process over another. There~are~d~tages in pursuing either alternative, The following decision factors were considered to favor sole soureenegotiations with the current provider: · Time required to enter into negotiations could be compressed. · Knowledge of the Company and confidence in the performance. · Transition is less difficult than a change to a new provider. · The costs of analyzing the proposal and negotiating may be less. The following decision factors support a competitive process: · Significant response from residents requesting a competitive process. · Overall impact on rates charged for services · Opportunity to obtain proposals utilizing differing technologies (e.g., Dual Collection Vehic!~s) · Ability to compare cost of ser~.ig~._.b~O~.upon more than one market io thg~,~.Ee~ 0~E~yclables and yard waste. · Opportunity to encourage greater competition and potential productivity increases, and/or leaner profit/indirect ch~.rges. It is important to note that the competitive Request For Proposal process does not require the City Council to make a deci~i~a~s~,e~e~ti~3y on cost. For example, some agencies have gone through the process and found that~ th~ ~bj~.O~ ~g,r~y~l~o§e, that the savings were so minimal that,.thgy would not justify the disruptions encountered with the transiti0n~9~ a~o~ provider. There ha~;e alsoi been, examples where the agency experienced cost savings from the competitive process. If the cu~r~ntprovider submits the lowest cost proposal, the Request For Proposal process provides the City with comparative data to base a decisiom..~b~gg_mparison becomes more subjective if the only information available is obtained through sole source negotiations. RESULTS OF SURVEY PREPARED & DISTRIBUTED BY BFI WASTE SYSTEMS BFI Waste Systems in~l-~ Company indicated that approximately 8,000 surveys were mailed. The mailing included two response cards. One was addressed.t,0~h~jty Council and required the resident to provide postage. The card stated; "~e would like to see the ~W of Dublin require an open competitive process for waste disposal and recycling se~ice." The second card was addresse0~9~p~0~~s questions related to garbage se~ices. TheBFI car~d~[~g~d postage. The following is a summary of the responses received by the City Council: SUMMARY OF BFI SURVEY RESPONSES DIRECTED TO THE CITY C~UN~IL 731 [96.3%] Respondents supported a competitive process. 25 [ 3.7%] Respondents supported negotiating with Waste Management of Alameda County(Livermore Dublin Disposal). 759 TOTAL RESPONDING TO THE, CITY CO~I~, The City received responses from approximately 9.5% of the cards mailed The following summarizes similar # of Responses 12 Specifically suggested that additional recycling opportunities be provided. (i.e. other types of plastics, cardboard, etc.) 12 Questioned or cited the .C0~!,~tg~9~t_~s~0yia~t~e~d~w~t~o~e process. 5 Specifically suggested that Green Waste be collected. 5 Commented on the process of collecting fees on the Property Tax bill The comments ~re!at~e~d t09xpanded services have been addr~q, ss~i~n~t~ ~R~,~,.~.~,?mplete list of all residents responding to the City, including the comments provided, is attached as Exhibit 8. In Exhibit 9 BFI has su.m~a~O~,~~~e~ponses received on thee, ir_ postage paid cards. The Company received 1,157 responses which represents a 14.5% response rate. The higher response received by the Company is most likely due to the fact that the resid.e,n~diO~,,~p~,O~O~,t~j~e postage. The percentage of those reported by BFI as being supportive of a competitive pro,ess was nearly identical to the percentage of support shown on eards.addre~.s~~ity Council. The survey conducted by BFI does not reflect that the public has significant concerns with the current provider. It does indicate that~th~r~.~[~,~m~9,Upport to look at other services particularly in the area of recycling. It may also be significant that only 19% find baekyard service important. As previously discussed the Request For Proposal will obtain cost comparisons on both back yard service and an automated curbside service. It would be appropriate for the City Council to discuss the alternative methods for distributing the Request For Proposal and provide Staff with direction. The alternatives available inc!~de: · Distribute the RFP only to Livermore Dublin Disposal (Waste Management Alameda' C6unty) · Distribute the RFP to all firms. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends ti~O~th~e~i,.tY C0uii~iI ~eeei~;e the'StaffRep0~ 'anna Pubiic'iiiPut and provide direction on the identified issues outlined below; as well as any other desired modifications. ~ SERVICE OPT!QN~S~-~ (EXHIBIT 3) Staff would request that the City Council provide additional input on the range of services and programs presented in Exhibit 3..Any additional programs and/or deletions will be incorporated into the final. Request For Proposal REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL EyA~.U~AT~IO~N_~RITERIA ......... -, (RFp Pages 28 and 29 Blue Pages) The City Council may wish to provide additional input on the Evaluation Criteria.and ~any changes or elements which should recgiy¢ a greater priority. 0 DRAFT AGREEMENT~K~Y~TE~RM~S_.z (E~!~[T 4) Staff would request that the City Council identify any terms or conditions that should be modified in the DraffPre![~j~n~ry Agreement. A Final Agreement for consideration by the City Council will not be presented until after final, negotiations with a selected vendg.r~ METHOD OF P.ROCUREME~-~Competitive Bids vs. Sole Source Negotiations It would be appropriate for the City Council to discuss the alternatiYe.~m~et~0O~9~ distributing the Request For Proposal and provide Staff with direction.