HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Attachments 1&2
CITY CLERK
File # D~~~-~~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 2, 2004
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATIO~
Execution of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Agreements
Report Prepared By: Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager
Jason Behrmann, Senior Analyst
Ric Hutchinson, R3 Consulting Group
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
1)
2)
3)
Amador Valley Industries Proposal
Republic Services Proposal
Waste Management Inc. Proposal
Summary of Proposal Sections Removed
Reference Summary
Year 1 Cost Comparison of Agreement Scenarios
Rate Comparison of Agreement Scenarios
Republic Services Rate Comparison to Tri- Valley Cities
Labor Contract Comparison
Amador Valley Industries Rate Comparison to Tn-Valley
Cities
Waste Management Inc. Rate Comparison to Tri~Val1ey
Cities
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the
Collection Services Agreement
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the
Disposal Services Agreement
Detennine the preferred contractor(s) and service alternatives
for collection and disposal services.
Adopt attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to
execute the Collection Services Agreement with the selected
contractor
Adopt attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to
execute the Disposal Services Agreement with the selected
contractor
__________________________M____________________________________---------------------------------------------~
H/cc-forms/agdastmt.doc
COPIES TO: Ric Hutchinson, R3 Consulting Group
Page 1 Qf 17
ATTACHMENT 1
\2-0 "-D+ ì~
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
The financial impact of the solid waste agreements will be detennined by the collection contractor
selected by the City Council. The impact of each option is summarized in the following table with the
least expensive option listed first.:
Pro osalO tion Total Com ensation -Year 1 Total Com ensation -7 Years
Republic Services with
Altamont Dis osal $5,912,752 $41 389,264
Amador Valley Industries
Collection with Vasco Road
Dis osal $7,770,190 $54,391,330
Waste Management with
Altamont Dis 05al $7802764 $54619,348
The recommended disposal option for each collection proposal has been included in the total
compensation amount. The total compensation shown over the initial seven year Collection Agreement
period does not include adjustments for growth or annual refuse rate index adjustments as provided in the
agreement. It is estimated that the total axmual compensation adjustment percentage would be similar
among the three proposals, however the actual dollar amount would differ based on the Year 1
compensation amount.
BACKGROUND
The current contract with Waste Management Inc. ("WMr', dba Livermore-Dublin Disposal) expires on
June 30, 2005. On April 6, 2004, the City executed a Consultant Services Agreement with R3 Consulting
Group ("R3") to provide assistance with a competitive proposal process for solid waste services. On July
20, 2004, the City Council approved the Staff recommendation to release the Request for Proposals
("RFP") documents for the Collection Services Agreement and the Disposal Services Agreement.
Proposals were due on September 13, 2004. The City received three proposals for Collection Services,
including Amador Valley Industries ("A VI"), Republic Services Inc., ("Republic") and Waste
Management, Inc., ("WMf'). The City received two proposals for Disposal Services, including Republic
and WMI.
.
PROCESS SCHEDULE
The following table provides the RFP process schedule:
. 'l¡¡Jåïte
RFP Document Available July 26,2004,- 1 :00 p.m.
Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference August 16, 2004 - 1 :00 p.m.
Deadline to submit Written Questions August 27, 2004 - 4 p.m.
Proposals Due September 13,2004 - 1 :00 p.m.
Contract Award November 2 or 16, 2004
Begin Service July 1, 2005
The table shown above contains the RFP process schedule. It is critical that the Council approve the
selection of the Contractors and authorize the City Manager to execute the Collection Services Agreement
and the Disposal Services Agreement as soon as possible. This is primarily due to the fact that the
selected Contractor for the Collection Services Agreement must place orders for trucks, carts and bins,
which is typically a lengthy process.
Page 2 of 17
COLLECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY
· Term: Seven (7) year initial term, plus (3) year option at the discretion of the Ci~y.
· Minimum Diversion Rate: Contractor will be required to divert a minimum of fifty percent (50%)
of all residential and commercial solid waste handled under the scope of the exclusive franchise.
Contractor will be subject to liquidated damages for non-compliance.
· Franchise and Administrative Fees: Contractor will be required to remit Franchise and
Administrative Fees in an amount substantially equal to the amounts collected under the current
contract.
· Perfonnance Bond: Contractor will be required to submit a Performance Bond (renewed annually)
in the amount of$l ,000,000.
· LiQuidated Damages: In an effort to ensure a high level of service, the Contractor will be subject to
liquidated damages ranging from $100 - $25,000 for non-compliance with specific contractual
requirements.
· Continued Residential Collection and Recvcling Programs: The following programs will continue
to be provided to Dublin residents:
o Variable Can Rate Structure: residents will continue to be offered garbage collection
service in approximately 32, 64 and 96-gallon carts (similar to the current program).
Residential rates will also continue to be based upon the size of the garbage cart, and will
include the package of residential programs, including curbside recycling, organic waste
collection, large item cleanup, etc.
o Source-Separated Côllectio1t: residents will continue to use three (3) separate carts,
including one each for garbage, commingled recyclables and organic waste.
o Weekly Collection: the garbage, recycling and organic waste carts will continue to be
collected weekly.
o Used Oil Collection: used oil will continue to be collected weekly at the curb in containers
provided by the Contractor.
o Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Event: the Contractor will continue to provide an
annual HHW drop-off event.
o Christmas Tree Collection: Christmas trees will continue to be collected at the curb during
the period ITom December 26 through the end of January.
· New Residential Collection and Recvcling Programs:
o On-Call Large Collection: residents may request up to three (3) Large Item collection
events per year, and may place a maximum of seven (7) cubic yards of material on the curb
for collection. The Contractor will be required to provide service within three business
days of the customer request. The program win be expanded to include tires, E-waste.
appliances. etc. at no additional charge.
o Used Oil Filters: residents may place used oil filters on the curb for collection in
conjunction with the used oil collection program. The Contractor will be required to
provide containers to residents for the used oil containers.
o Additional Organic Waste and Recycling Carts: residents may request one additional, or
larger, organic waste and/or recycling cart at no additional charge.
o Food Waste Collection: residents may place food waste in the organic waste cart for
collection and processing.
Page 3 of 17
o Household Batteries: residents may place household batteries in a zip-lock bag and place
it in or on top of the recycling cart for collection.
· New Commercial Programs
o Commercial Recycling Service at No Additional Charge: Currently, commercial
customers pay a fee for garbage collection and a separate fee for recyclables collection.
Under the new Agreement, commercial customers will receive recycling services at no
additional charge. This will make the commercial program consistent with the residential
program, such that the customer rate is dependent on the level of garbage collection
service, and includes all recycling programs.
o Special Collection: the hauler will provide Special Coltection Service at no additional
charge (for example - up to 480 cubic' yards per year at the direction of City staff for
neighborhood clean-up events).
· Service Rate Adiustments
o Annual Rate Adjustments: Rates to be adjusted annually on July 1 st, and the first rate
adjustment will take effect on July 1, 2006.
o Refuse Rate Index: Annual adjustments to the collection compensation will be based upon
annual changes in five separate Indices maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(Refuse Rate Index), plus pass·through disposal costs. The five indices account for cost
changes in the following categories: labor; fuel and oil; vehicle replacement; vehicle
maintenance; and all other costs. There is a 5% cap on the annual adjustment to the Refuse
Rate Index.
· Customer Service and Billin~
o The Contractor will continue to be responsible for customer service and billing functions.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS
The proposal evaluation process fW1damenta1ly included the following four steps:
Step 1 ~ Evaluation Team Performs Due Diligence: In the first step, the evaluation team peñonned a
thorough due diligence process for each proposal received in response to the City's RFP. The evaluation
team consisted of City staff members Joni Pattillo and Jason Behrmann, and Ric Hutchison of R3
Consulting Group. The due diligence process included the following tasks:
· A complete review and analysis of each proposal;
· Interviews with municipal client references;
· Site visits to recycling, transfer, compo sting and disposal facilities;
· Questions and points of clarification submitted to each proposer;
· Presentations from, and interviews with, each proposer.
Step 2 - Evaluation Team Assi2DS Raw Scores: In the second step, the evaluation team assigned raw
scores to each proposal. The scoring was divided into four categories, with a possible 100 points
available in each category. The evaluation criteria categories included the following:
· Overall responsiveness to the RFP;
· Proposers experience and qualifications;
· ,Adequacy and completeness ofthe technical proposal;
· Compensation (Cost / Service rates)
The evaluation team assigned raw scores to each proposal on October 19,2004.
Step 3 - City Council Assigns Criteria Weighting Factors to Detennine Proposal Rankings: In the third
step, the City Council assigned weighting factors to each of the four evaluation criteria categories. The
Page 4 007
final weighting factors established by the City Council at the October 19. 2004 City Council Meeting were
then combined with the raw scores from the evaluation team to estab1ish the final proposal rankings.
Step 4 - Final Weighting Factors: Table 1 provides a summary of the weighted scores, which are a
combination of the raw scores provided by the evaluation team and the criteria weighting factors provided
by the City Council. The weighted scores indicate that Republic scored the highest on the Collection
Services proposal, and WMI scored the highest on the Disposal Services proposal.
Table 1
Final Rankings - Weighted Scores
Collection Disposal
AVI 72.64 N/A
Republic 81.91 83.46
Waste Management 69.s 5 86.63
The proposals have been included as attachments to this report. Sections ofthe proposals not affecting the
evaluation process have been removed to streamline the review of the documents. Attachment 4 includes a
summary of the sections removed from each of the proposals. The complete proposals are available upon
request.
The scores for each criteria used in evaluating the proposals are summarized below including a description
of the relevant items affecting the outcome of the evaluations.
EVALUATION TEAM PROPOSAL RATINGS .. COLLECTION
ResDonsiveness to RFP. In scoring this category the evaluators considered the following areas:
· Order of proposal content (in relation to that required by the RFP)
· Completeness of the proposal
· Adequacy of the proposal content
· Exceptions to the Agreement language
· Exceptions to the requested programs
· Viable alternatives to the requested programs
Using the above criteria the evaluators scored this category as follows:
Table 2..A
Collection Services Raw and Weighted Scores by Category
Responsiveness to RFP
Proposer Raw Score Weighting Factor Weighted Score
AVI 81.67 12% 9.80
Republic 75.00 12% 9.00
Waste Management 53.33 12% 6.40
In developing these scores the evaluators considered the following factors:
AVI
· The proposal was substantially complete and provided the required infonnation in the appropriate
order and manner requested in the RFP.
· The company took no exceptions to the Agreement language.
Page 5 of 17
· A VI's proposal did not include the use of Alternative Fuel Vehicles for the entire collection fleet.
· The company provided an alternative collection program to reduce the number of collection
vehicles. This option is discussed in greater detail in the Alternatives section of this report and in
the Alternatives tab of Attachment 1.
Republic
· Republic>s proposal was substantially in compliance with the requested order and manner
requested in the RFP.
· Republic>s proposal included the payment of wages based on the wage scale used by Teamsters
Local 315 in Contra Costa County, which may not meet the RFP requirements that the proposer
pay prevailing wages in Alameda County.
· Republic took several minor exceptions to the Collection Agreement language, although all items
have been resolved to the satisfaction of the City.
Waste Management
· Waste Management's proposal was substantially in compliance with the requested order and
manner requested in the RFP. However, it contained substantial amounts of inaccurate and
incomplete infonnation. For example, the original compensation fonns submitted by WMI
included franchise fees in the collection compensation amount> despite instrnctions to the contrary.
This error significantly impacted the compensation amount in the original proposal. Fortunately,
the error was identified by Staff and the corrected compensation fonns were submitted by WMI.
Both sets offonns have been included in the Fonns section of Attachment 3.
· Waste Management's proposal did not include several major programs as required. by the RFP
including:
o The compost give-back provision;
o The use of Alternate Fuel Vehicles for the entire collection fleet;
o The provision of on-site supervision for neighborhood cleanup services; and
o The ownership of carts by the City at the end of the Agreement.
· Waste Management's compensation proposal, as originally submitted, did not include the cost of
the programs referenced above. (The compensation proposal has since been revised to include the
cost for the compost giveback and neighborhood cleanup programs.)
· Despite instructions to the contrary> Waste Management took the position that the Collection
Service Agreement provided by the City in the RFP was only to be used as a starting point for
negotiations and made multiple and extensive changes to the Agreement language. They initially
indicated that some of the exceptions were not negotiable> but when asked by the City if they
would sign the Agreement if the City refused to accept any of their proposed changes> they
indicated that they were uncertain. The majority of the issues remain unresolved. (The Col1ection
Service Agreement, as amended by Waste Management, is contained in the appendix to the
proposal submitted by Waste Management, which is provided as an attachment to this report.)
Proposers EXÐerience and Qualifications. The evaluators considered the following areas in scoring this
category:
· Organizational structure and management
· Key staff qualifications
· Similar services
· Public education experience
· Diversion experience
· Transition experience
· Customer service experience
Page 6 of 17
· References
· Financial stability
Table 2·B
Collection Services Raw and Weighted Scores by Category
Experience and Qualifications
Proposer Raw Score Weighting Factor
A VI 78.33 30%
Republic 78.67 30%
Waste Management 80.00 30%
In developing these scores the evaluators considered the following factors:
All Companies
· Except as discussed below related to A VI, the proposers overall experience in providing collection
and related services was very similar and therefore no detailed comments are provided.
AVI
Weighted Score
23.50
23.60
24.00
· A VI is a new company and therefore the experience provided was that of companies operated by
the owners of A VI.
· Key staf4 while new to A VI, have extensive experience in other companies owned by the owners
of A VI.
· A VI, as a new company, has no experience in providing collection services. However, this is
offset by the experience of the key personnel with other waste companies.
· References from municipalities receiving services from companies owned and operated by the
owners of A VI were more positive than negative. There were some concerns related to business
and school recycling programs. (See Attachment 5 to this report for details of the reference
review.)
ReoubJic
· While Republic has extensive experience in transition on a national level, the local company has
limited experience. This should be mitigated by the èxperience of the key personnel with other
waste companies.
ReDublic & Wàste Manaeement
· References from municipalities receiving collection service ftom Republic and Waste
Management were generally positive. There were some concerns related to public education and
difficulties dealing with the management of Republic and Waste Management on contract and
program issues. (See Attachment 5 to this report for details of the Reference review.)
Technical Proposal- Collection. The evaluators considered the following areas in scoring this category:
· Collection methods & operation
· AFV plan
· Diversion plan
· Transition plan
· Customer service plan
· Public education plan
· Processing plans
· Violation history
Page 7 of 17
Table 2-C
Collection Services Raw and Weighted Scores by Category
Technical Proposal - Collection
Proposer Raw Score Weighting Factor
A VI 77.00 30%
Republic 81.00 30%
Waste Management 76.67 30%
In developing these scores the evaluators considered the following factors:
AU ComDanies
· Collection methods and operations of all proposers were very similar.
AVI
· A VI's Alternative Fuel Vehicle plan did not include the use of clean air vehicles for large item and
roll off collection services.
· A VI's Transition Plan provided very little detail ofthe specific steps to be completed leading up to
and through transition and the planning required to complete those steps in a timely manner.
· A VI's Public Education Plan was very detailed and included some iImovative and aggressive ideas
including the Neighborhood Recycling Leaders program and the Go Green Initiative. In addition,
the Plan included funding to implement the Go Green Initiative in the initial year and to fund it
through year 6 of the Agreement.
ReDublic
· Republic's Alternative Fuel Vehicle plan included the use of clean air vehicles for all collection
service vehicles.
· Republic's Transition Plan was very detailed and comprehensive. It included a substantial amount
of community education.
· Republic's Public Education Plan contained some innovative ideas, such as the Neighborhood
Recycling Leaders program and the Neighborhood Grant program.
· The School Outreach and Education portion of Republic's Public Education Plan was very brief
and did not include any innovative or aggressive ideas.
Waste Manal!ement
· Waste Management's Alternative Fuel Vehicle plan did not include the use of clean air vehicles
for roll off collection services.
· Waste Management's Transition Plan was very brief and did not adequately address transition to
the new "no charge" recycling programs for multi-family and commercial customers.
· Waste Management's Public Education Plan contained little detail and did not contain any
iImovative or aggressive new programs.
Compensation - Collection. The evaluators considered the following areas in scoring this category:
· Collection compensation
· Discount (for award of Collection and Disposal Service Agreements to the same proposer)
Weighted Score
23.10
24.30
23.00
Page 8 of 17
Table 2-D
Collection Services Raw and Weiehted Scores by Cateeory
Compensation - Collection
Proposer Raw Score Weighting Factor Weighted Score
AVI 58.00 28% 16.24
Republic 89.33 28% 25.01
Waste Management 57.67 28% 16.15
In developing these scores the evaluators considered the following factors, which are highlighted in Table
3 below:
AVI
· A VI's Collection & Container compensation proposal was 44.9% higher than that of the lowest
proposer, Republic.
· A VI's proposal was based on the delivery of solid waste to the Vasco Road Landfill. In the event
the waste was directed to the Altamont Landfill the Collection compensation element for the first
year of the Agreement would be increased by 3.88% or $220,450 for a total of$5,902,200.
· A VI's container compensation proposal was approximately 1 % higher than that submitted by
Republic.
Revublic
· Republic's Collection & Container compensation proposal was the lowest by approximately $1.8
million as shown in Table 3 below.
· Republic's proposal was based on the delivery of solid waste to the Vasco Road Landfill. In the
event the waste was directed to the Altamont Landfill the Collection compensation element would
be increased by 4.02% or $155,270 resulting in a total collection and container compensation of
$4,209,770.
· Republic's container compensation proposal was the lowest.
Waste Manaeement
· Waste Management~s Collection & Container compensation proposal was 44.6% higher than that
ofthe lowest proposer, Republic.
· Waste Management's proposal was based on the delivery of solid waste to the Altamont Landfill.
However, they did not provide a cost differential for delivery of waste to the Vasco Road Landfill.
· Waste Management's container compensatiön proposal was approximately 49% higher than that
submitted by Republic.
COLLECTION COMPENSATION COMPARISON FOR AGREEMENT YEAR 1
The following table provides a comparison of the proposed collection and container compensation
amounts in each ofthe three proposals received. A more detailed comparison including the franchise and
administrative fee element and the disposal element is included in Attaclunent 6.
Table 3
Collection Compensation
Container Compensation
Total
Proposed Collection & Container Compensation For Agreement Year 1
A VI Republic Waste Management
$5,681,747 $3,862,500 $5,677,141
$193,654 $192,000 $285,501
$5,875,401 $4,054,500 $5,962,642
Page 9 of 17
In addition, the compensation fonn required the proposers to submit a tonnage amount that they
anticipated for Year 1. The tonnage amount affects the overall compensation as the tonnage is multiplied
by the disposal tip fee, to produce the disposal compensation amount shown on Attachment 6. The
tonnage submitted by the three companies is shown on the foJlowing page.
Proposal Disposal Tonnage
A VI 31,107
Republic 27,650
WMI 32,637
EVALUATION TEAM PROPOSAL RATINGS - DISPOSAL
The following table shows the weighted scores for the disposal proposals for each of the evaluation
criteria.
Table 4
Disposal Services Raw and Wei2hted Scores by Catee:orv
Responsiveness to RFP - Disposal
Evaluation Criteria Weighting Republic Waste
Facto,. Management
Responsiveness to the RFP
· Order of proposal content & completeness
of the proposal
· Adequacy of the proposal content
· Exceptions to the Agreement language
· Exceptions to the requested programs
· Viable alternatives 12% 9.92 9.00
Experience and Qualifications
· Overall structure and management
· Key staff qualifications
· Similar services
· References
· Financial stability 30% 25.80 26.00
Technical Proposal- Disposal
· Disposal services
· Operations plan
· Capacity guarantee
· Required expansion
· Facility location
· Violations history 30% 24.50 25.50
Compensation - Disposal
· Disposal rates 28% 23.24 26.13
· Discount
Total Weighted Scores 100% 83.46 86.63
ResJ)onsiveness to RFP
There was not a great differential in the scoring of this category. The primary issue in this category was
that Waste Management did not submit disposal rates for the entire ten year period as required by the
RFP, but instead included the first year cost with a note that rates would be adjusted annually based on
80% of Cpr. At Staffs request, WMI resubmitted the disposal rates form in accordance with the RFP.
Both Republic and WMI included an exception to remOve the "Most Favored Customer" provision from
Page 10 of17
the Disposal Agreement. This provision requires that the City's disposal rate not exceed the lowest rate
charged at the disposal facility to any similar size jurisdiction at any time during the agreement.
Experience and Qualifications
Both companies have similar qualifications and experience resulting in virtually identical scores.
Technical Proposal
There is a minor scoring differential in the category primarily du.e to the capacity guarantee and expansion
plans of Republic. The proposal submitted by Republic indicated that there were plans to expand the
Vasco Road Landfill in the next several years and the impact of that expansion was unknown, although
Republic did indicate that it would not affect its ability to accept waste due to an abundance of remaining
pennitted capacity at the landfill. Republic indicated that it would provide a capacity guarantee but it was
not included as part of the proposal.
Comoensation
The following table includes a rate comparison of the proposals:
Component
Table 5
Total Cost Per Ton Comparison
Republic (Vasco Waste Management
Road) (AItamont Landfill)
$17.20 $12.76
$13.41 $13.41
- $1.25
- $.075
Tip Fee
Government Fees -Mise
Open Space Fee
County Platming
Fee
Total
$30.61
$27.50
As shown in the above table, there is a modest rate differentíal between the two proposals. Additionally,
WMI stated during the interview process that there are two governmental surcharges and/or fees levied at
the Altamont Landfill that are not levied at the Vasco Road Landfill. The two fees include the County
Open Space Fee ($1.25/ton) and the County Planning Department Fee (S.075/ton), for total additional fees
of $ 1. 325/ton collected at Altamont (compared to Vasco). WMI expressed concern that the comparison of
cost proposals for disposal services is not 'equitable if govenunental fees are charged at Altamont that are
not charged at Vasco. In addition, WMI stated that there is currently an effort underway to implement
these government fees and surcharges at the Vasco Road Landfill in an effort to "level the playing field".
It is unknown at this time when or if these fees will be imposed at the Vasco Road Landfill although Staff
believes that there is a high probability that these fees will be levied sometime during the tenn of the
Agreement. It is important to note that all new governmental fees are passed through to the Cíty. If the
additional fees are levied in the future, the compensation differential will be even greater.
The compensation category provided the most significant scoring difference, resulting in WMI receiving
the highest weighted disposal score.
FRANCHISE FEE CALCULATION
The City currently receives a 12.6% Franchise Fee and a 2% Administrative Fee on gross revenues
received Wlder the Collection Services Franchise Agreement.
The Franchise Fee revenues received by the City grow proportionally to the annual increases in the total
revenues generated under the Franchise Agreement. During the period from Fiscal Year 1997-98 through
Fiscal Year 2003~04, Franchise Fees received by the City grew at an average arumal rate of 11.01 %. due to
Page 11 of 17
the City's growth and annual rate adjustments. Based on Staff projections, it is estimated that these fees
will generate approximately $942,604 in General Fund revenues during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year.
The Collection Services Agreement language will be amended to establish the Franchise ançl
Administrative Fee percentage at a level that will generate a similar amount ofrevenue to that which the
City currently receives This percentage will differ depending on the contractor selected by the Council,
but will be set to produce the desired revenue. By establishing the fee as a percentage of gross revenues,
the franchise fee revenues will continue to grow throughout the life of the Collection Services Agreement
consistent with the current agreement.
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICE OPTIONS
There are a number of different options for the provision of solid waste col1ection and disposal services
that should be carefully considered. The following sections provide a detailed comparison ofthe pros and
cons of selecting among the three collection service providers. Staff has included the recommended
disposal site for each collection service option. A complete comparison of the total compensation for Year
1 for each of the service alternatives is included in Attachment 6. The proposal options are presented with
the least expensive option first.
REPUBLIC SERVICES COLLECTION WITH AL TAMONT LANDFILL DISPOSAL
Republic Services was the number one overall Collection Services proposal according to the weighted
scores. The total cost for selecting Republic as the collection service provider, including awarding the
Disposal Agreement to WMI for the Altarnont Landfill is $5,912,752 as shown in option 1 of Attachment
6.
If Republic is selected by the City Council as the preferred collection option, Staff recommends the
Disposal Agreement be awarded to Wl\1I for the Altamont. Landfill. When comparing the first year costs
between RepubHc Services disposing at the Vasco Road Landfill and the Altamont Landfill, it appears
that Republic collection with disposal at Vasco Road is the least expensive option as shown on
Attachment 6.
Although the disposal proposal from WMI for the Altamont Landfill included a lower tip fee, the multi-
service discount submitted by Republic Services if awarded both Agreements and the· compensation
increase required by Republic to haul to the Altamont Landfill make the Vaseo Road Landfill option less
expensive in Year 1. However, the RFP required Contractors submitting cost proposals for disposal
services to provide tip-fees for the full ten-year tenn of the Disposal Agreement. Based upon those tip-fee
proposals and assuming the additional $1.325/ton open space and planning fees will be imposed at the
Vasco Road Landfill, if the City were to select Republic to provide Collection Services, the costs to the
City to enter into a Disposal Agreement with Republic for disposal at Vasco Road are roughly equal to the
cost of a Disposal Agreement with WMI for disposal at Altamont over the term of the Agreement as
shown below:
Total Compensati()nf()r duration ofTen Year contract
Republic to Vasco Road with $1.325/ ton additional fees: $60,887,556
Republic to Altamont $60,805,765
Additionally, there may be some advantage to selecting different collection and disposal companies. The
execution of the Col1ection Agreement with one contractor and the Disposal Agreement with a separate
contractor creates an incentive for the Collection Contractor to maximize the level of recycling. This
results from the fact that if the Collection Contractor is required to pay a tip~fee to a separate company for
disposal capacity, the Collection Contractor has a strong incentive to maximize landfill diversion to avoidrpaying the tip-fee to the separate company. On the other hand, if the Collection Contractor is disposing of
material at its own landfill, the tip-fees are generating revenues that wi1l remain within the company, and
the only recycling incentive for the Collection Contractor is to comply with the provision of the
Agreement.
Page 12 of I?
Rate Impact
The option to select Republic as the collection service provider and the Altamont Landfil1 as the disposal
site will require the lowest rate increase among the three proposals. As shown on Attachment 7, the
overall rate increase would be approximately 14%. A comparison of these rates to those of other cities in
the Tri-Valley is included as Attachment 8.
Labor Impact
The proposal from Republic calls for collection vehicles servicing the City of Dublin to be staged out of
its facility in the City of Richmond. The Richmond facility operates under a labor contract with
Teamsters Local 315. The Local 315 contract provides a wages and benefits package that is slightly lower
than the Teamsters Local 70 contract for the current Dublin drivers. A detailed comparison of the labor
contract. compensation packages is included as Attachment 9. It should be noted that the total
compensation differential between the two unions for the Dublin drivers is estimated to be approximately
$125,000 per year as shown on page 2 of Attachment 9. This difference is not sufficient to explain the
$1.8 million difference in cost between the Repub1ic proposal and the other two proposals.
Republic has indicated that if it were selected, the current Local 70 employees with WMI will be offered
employment with Republic under the Local 315 contract. If the current employees reject a job with
Republic, they will remain in the Local 70 driver pool and wil1likely be reassigned to a different City as
their seniority level pennits.
The current draft Collection Services Agreement requires the payment of prevailing wages of Alameda
County. While there has been no detennination made on the current solid waste prevailing wages in
Alameda County, it is likely that the prevailing wage would be similar to those provided by Local 70,
given they represent the majority of solid waste workers in Alameda COl,illty. Therefore, ü Republic is
the preferred contractor, Staff recommends that the current "draft Collection Agreement language
be amended to specify the payment of Teamsters Loca1315 wages. If the Council does not wish to
amend the Collection Agreement lan~uage, Republic has indicated that it would be unable to sign
the Collection Agreement.
AMADOR VALLEY INDUSTRIES WITH VASCO ROAD LANDFILL DISPOSAL
Amador Valley Industries was the number two overall Collection Services proposal according to the
weighted scores. The total first year cost of selecting A VI as the collection service provider, including
awarding the Disposal Agreement to Republic Services for the Vasco Road Landfill is $7,770,190 as
shown in option 2 of Attachment 6.
If A VI is selected by the City Council as the preferred collection option, Staff recommends the Disposal
Agreement be awarded to Republic Services for the Vasco Road Landfill.
Although the disposal proposal from WMI for the Altament Landfill included a lower tip fee, the
additional compensation required by A VI to haul to the Altamont Landfill make the Vasco Road Landfill
option less expensive over the life of the Agreement.
Rate Impact
The option to select A VI as the collection service provider and the Vasco Road Landfill as the disposal
site will require a significant rate increase for Dublin ratepayers. As shown on Attachment 7. the overall
rate increase would be approximately 50%.. A comparison of these rates to those of other cities in the Tri-
Valley is included as Attachment 10.
Labor Impact
A VI currently has no labor contracts with any union organization. However, A VI has submitted a letter to
the City, included in the Labor Agreement section of Attachment 1, indicating that if it were selected, it
would be wi1ling to sign a contract with Local 70 and offer employment to the existing employees.
Page 13 of 17
WASTE MANAGEMENT WITH ALTAMONT LANDFILL DISPOSAL
Waste Management was the number three overall col1ection service proposal according to the weighted
scores. The total cost for selecting WMI as the collection service provider, including awarding the
disposal contract to WMI for the Altamont Landfill is $7,802,764 as shown on option 3 of Attachment 6.
If WMI is selected by the City Council as the preferred collection option, Staff recommends the disposal
Agreement be awarded to WM1 for the Altamont Landfill due to the significantly lower disposal
compensation. As can be seen from Attachment 6, the disposal compensation for the Altarnont landfill is
$101,501 less than the compensation for Vasco Road in Year 1 of the Agreement. Although there are
significant benefits to selecting different collection and disposal companies as previously described, the
cost benefits of selecting WMI for both Agreements outweigh these other benefits.
Rate Impact
The option to select WMI as the collection service provider and the Altamont Landfill as the disposal site
will require a significant rate increase for Dublin ratepayers. As shown on Attachment 7, the overall rate
increase would be approximately 51 %. A comparison of these rates to those of other cities in the Tri-
Valley is included as Attacmnent 11.
.
Labor Impact
WMI currently stages the collection vehicles operating in the City of Dublin. out of its facility in the City
of Livennore. WMI operates its Livennore facility under a labor contract with the Teamsters Local 70. If
the City elects to enter into an agreement with WMI, the current WMI employees would continue
operating within the City at their current salary, seniority and benefit level.
COST SAVINGS FOR PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
The RFP required proposers to provide cost proposals for several different program alternatives, including
the following: 1) the elimination of the Residential Food Waste Collection Program; 2) the reduction of
the allowable material volume limit in the Large Item Collection Program from seven (7) cubic yards to
five (5) cubic yards per collection event; 3) the elimination of electronic waste from the Large Item
Collection Program; and 4) the elimination ofthe requirement for Alternate Fuel Vehicles.
Table 6 below provides the cost savings provided by each of the three haulers for each program
alternative:
Alternative
Table 6
Net Cost Savings for Program Alternatives
A VI Republic
No Residential Food Waste Collection Program
Large Item Collection program @ 5 cubic yards
versus 7 cubic yards
No E-waste accepted in Large Item Collection
Program
No Alternate Fuel Vehicle Requirement
$ 59,128
$ -
$ 508
$-
Waste
Management
$-
$ 36,004
$ 66,667
$ 4,200
$ 12,000
$ 400,392
$ 223,800
$ 295,085
With the exception ofthe Alternate Fuel V chicle option, the potential cost savings offered by the
proposers are not sufficient to offset the benefits the residents will receive from the services as
specified in the RFP. The cost savings from deleting the requirement for Alternate Fuel Vehicles are
sufficient to merit a review of the effect selecting this option would have on the residential and
commercial rates.
Page 14 of 17
Alternate Fuel Vehicle ODtion ComDarison
Table 7
Re I)ublic
With AFV Without AFV
Required Rate Increase (%) 14.00% 9.60%
Service Level
32 Gallon Residential Cart $11.57 $11.12
1 Cubic Yard Container Once per Week $49.54 $47.63
AVI
With AFV Without AFV
Reauired Rate Increase (%) 50.30% 42.5%
Service Level
32 GaHon Residential Cart $15.26 $14.46
1 Cubic Yard Container Once per Week $65.32 $61.93
Waste Manal!ement
With AFV Without AFV
Reauired Rate Increase (%) 51.00% 45.20%
Service Level
32 Gallon Residential Cart $15.33 $14.74
1 Cubic Yard Container Once per Week $65.62 $63.1 0
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
A VI and Waste Management presented additional program alternatives that are described in the following
section of this report.
AVI
A VI proposed to implement a «Brown Bag" diversion program. Under this program residents would seal
their non-recyclable garbage in a "brown bag" and place the bag in the Recyclable Cart. The brown bags
would then be removed from the recyclable stream at the MRF/transfer station. Under this program the
number of trucks and carts would be reduced ITom 3 to 2 providing for less truck traffic and benefiting the
residents through reduced air emissions, reduced impact on Dublin streets and reduced noise impact.
However only those residents subscribing to the minimum level of garbage service, which represents
approximately 65% of Dublin residents, would be able to eliminate a cart. The garbage/recycling cart
proposed by A VI would be 96 gallon, therefore a 32 gallon garbage cart and 64 gallon recycling cart
would have the same capacity as the proposed 96 gallon garbage/recycling cart, thereby eliminating the
need for a third cart. However with either of the current 64 gallon or 96 gallon garbage carts service level
options, the 96 gallon garbage/recycling cart would have less capacity than the existing combination of
separate garbage and recycling carts, therefore, residents would have to either reduce their capacity or add
a third cart.
While A VI did indicate that this program would reduce their capital costs over the life of the Collection
Service Agreement by $950,000 they did not provide alternative compensation proposal forms as required
by the RFP to allow the City to actually evaluate the alternative proposal. In addition, when questioned
about this alternative at the proposer intetview they indicated that tlùs alternative was only presented for
discussion purposes and that implementation would require a considerable amount of effort, including
obtaining permission ITom the City of Pleasant on to bring garbage to the MRF/Transfer Station along with
the recyclables.
In addition, to be successful the program would require that several conditions be met by the residents
including; the participation of virtually an of the residents in the residential food waste program so that
Page 15 of 17
only "dry" garbage was placed in the "brown bags" and utilization by the residents of a special "brown
bags" that were strong enough to withstand being mixed in the collection vehicle with the recyclables
without splitting and contaminating the recyclable materials.
While staff applauds A VI for their initiative in proposing the program, and believes that this type of
program may one day be a viable alternative, it does not appear that this program has been developed to
the point where it could be implemented in the near future.
Waste Manauement
Waste Management proposed to utilize their existing vehicles and carts instead of providing Alternate
Fuel Vehicles and new carts. With this option, carts would continue to be replaced or repaired as required,
however by using an older vehicle fleet, there may be more time lost due to repair and maintenance
requirements that could impact the deJivery of service. The table below compares the proposed alternative
Collection and Cart compensation with that of their base proposal and that of the other proposers.
Table 8
Comparison of Proposed Base and Alternative Collection & Container Compensation
AVI Republic WM WM Alternative
Base Proposal Base Proposal Base Proposal Proposal
Collection $5,681,747 $3,862,500 $5,677,141 $5,026,626
Compensation
Container Compensation $ 193,654 $ 192,000 $ 285,501 $ 181,078
Total $5,875,401 $4,054,500 $5,862,642 $5,207,704
While this alternative proposal does provide a Collection and Cart compensation reduction of $745,000,
or 14.30%, it is stil1 $1,153,000 higher than the base proposal of Republic. The required rate increase and
a sample of the resulting rates are set forth in the following table.
Table 9
Waste ManaEement - Comnarison of Base and Alternative Proposal
Base Proposal Alternative Proposal
Required Rate Increase (%) 51.00% 36.4%
Service Level
32 Gallon Residential Cart $15.33 $13.84
1 Cubic Yard Container Once per Week $65.62 $59.28
Decision Points
To assist the City Council in their decision to select a solid waste contractor for the City of Dublin for the
next 7-10 years, Staff recommends that the Council consider the following key issues:
1) A key factor in the decision is whether to require Alameda County prevailing wages for the
selected Collection Contractor.
2) If the Council determines that there is some flexibility in thìs Collection Agreement provision,
the Council must then decide which of the three proposals best meets the needs of the City and
its residents and businesses.
3) If the Council decides that the Alameda County wage provision must be included in the
Collection Agreement. Republic would be effectively eliminated from consideration, given
their current labor contract with Teamsters Local 315, which would presumably not meet the
prevailing wage requirements of Alameda County. The Council must then decide between the
proposals submitted by A VI and WMI.
Page 16 of 17
4) The Council should then consider whether the proposed 50% rate increase resulting from
selecting either A VI or WMI, is acceptable and whether the additional services justify this
expense.
5) If the Council is satisfied with either of the proposals and the potential rate increase. then the
Council can select the proposal that the Council determines is in the best interest of the City
and approve the resolution executing the Collection Agreement.
6) If the Council determines that the 50% rate increase is unacceptable, there are several options
that could be considered to reduce the total compensation and the impact to the rates. The
following options may be considered:
a. Eliminate Alternative Fuel Vehicle requirement - Table 7 shows the potential rate
reduction that could result from selecting this option.
b. Accept alternative proposals submitted by WMI to utilize existing trucks and carts. Table 9
indicates the potential rate reduction that could result from selecting this option.
c. Explore "Brown Bag" proposal from A VI. This would require additional discussions
between Staff and A VI and it is unclear at this time what impact this would have on the
rates.
7) If the Council gets to this point and is not cOßÛortable with any of the available options, the
Council could direct Staff to extend the current agreement with Waste Management by one
year and go back out to bid. There were a number of external factors that affected the number
of proposals received, including other RFPs released at the same time. It is possible that
additional companies may elect to submit a proposal if it were re-released.
RECOMMENDATION
Detenmne the preferred contractor(s) for collection and disposal services and adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Collection Services Agreement with the selected
Collection Contractor and adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the
Disposal Services Agreement with the selected Disposal Contractor.
Final minor amendments have been made (changes highlighted) to the attached proposed Agreements.
Staff recommends that with the exception of the "Most Favored Customer" provision, that all company
proposed Agreement language changes be disregarded and that the Agreements be approved in
substantially the form attached as exhibits to the resolutions. Staff recommends deletion of the "Most
Favored Customer" provision due to the Staffs concurrence that the Disposal Agreement should stand on
its own merit and that other contracts may not reflect the same operating assumptions and risks. This was
an item that neither WMI nor Republic was willing to negotiate. Additionally, if Republic is selected as
the Collection Contractor, that the Collection Service Agreement Prevailing Wages section be amended
as follows:
"20.02 Prevailing Wages. Wages and benefits applicable to employees of CONTRACTOR performing
work under the Agreement shall not be less than those prevailing for comparable work. The prevailing
wages shall be governed by the wages and benefits provided to Teamster's Garbage and Recycling Unit
Members for Local 315 or Local 70 depending on which local has jurisdiction over the CONTRACTOR's
workers for work under this Agreement."
Any additional Agreement language changes will be limited to clarification and will not affect the content
or intent of the Agreement approved by City Council. Any significant changes prior to execution will be
brought back to the Council for approval.
Page 17 of 17
REVISED
PROPOSAL TO:
THE CITY OF DUBLIN FOR
COLLECTION SERVICES
AVI
AMADOR VALLEY INDUSTRIES
copy proposal
November 16, 2004
A+-tAt:,~ Me. trt-.. ~
AVI
AMADOR VALLEY INDUSTRIES
PO Box 1048
Pleasanton, CA 94566
November 16, 2004
Jason Behrmann, Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
A VI Proposal Cost
A VI is very pleased to be able to reduce the total annual cost of service from the initial
proposal. Our revised full annual cost as requested by the City Council is $4,176,900.
The reason we are able to reduce the proposed cost so significantly is straightforward: the
original costs were based on our projected increased service levels and households as of June
2006. After meeting with City staff and R3 representative Ric Hutchinson we came to realize
the June 2006 projection data numbers were not what we should have used. Our new costs
are based on the figures provided by City staff in Addendum 5, which we received via email
on November loth.
Natural Gas Vehicles .
As we stated at the November 2nd Council meeting, A \II will purchase all new trucks which
will use Compressed Natural Gas in providing services to the City of Dublin. All new trucks
will be purchased this includes all Roll-off and FEL trucks. We remain committed ·to working
with the City to site a natural gas fueling station locally. We recently met with P.G. & E.
representatives, Sam L. Altshuler who represented P.G. & E. at the November 2, 2004 City
Council Meeting and Chris Ferrara to inquire about the Grant Funding available to assist in
the purchase of natural gas vehicles and to site a natural gas fueling station.
A Dublin Office - A Local Presence
We budgeted to maintain a Dublin office for the benefit of customer convenience and
customer service. In addition to the Dublin office we have retained our comprehensive public
education program and the outstanding educational Go Green Initiative. We feel that these
components truly set us apart from any other proposer.
1
The Pride of Local 70 Labor
Crystal clear: We will honor the Local 70 contract currently in place in the City of
Dublin_ Every employee under that contract will be offered a job with A VI if our proposal is
selected. Every employee that chooses to come to work for us will retain the full seniority,
pay and benefits that they have today.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present these clarifications and improvements to
our original proposal. We feel strongly that the combination of price, local presence and
commitment to service that we're offering is a high value package, We look forward to
addressing any outstanding concerns or questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Æ1JJ CµV¡ Jv- ~
Robert J. Molinaro
President
Addendum 4 Enclosures:
D-l through D-8
Collection Service Information Forms
Collection Vehicle Forms F, G & H
Original Proposal Section Change - Vehicle Collection
2
City of Dublin
Collection and Disposal Services
Addendum 4
ADDENDUM NO.4
COMPANY NAME:
COMPANY ADDRESS:
REPRESENTATIVE'S NAME:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
DATED: November 4, 2004
Amador Valley Industries, LLC.
P.O. Box 1048, Pleasanton, CA 94566
Rob~rt ~. MOI~ ;:
41t-4J- WI/I..t01 th1f .
Ylr¡/-- - IS- ~ tJ rj
I
':.1_S~!!f?;\
IIII/.¥I~\\('
II\I!"Q ~,:~:!
\~" ~ }//)/
""CillJ~~:';/
Page 2
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal ServÎces
Attachment 1
Form 0
Collection Service Rate Proposal Forms
Prior to preparing the Collection Service Rate Proposal Forms, Proposers should review the Collection
Service Agreement of the RFP.
The Undersigned hereby certifies as follows:
That Robert J. Molinaro have personally and carefully examined the specifications and instructions for
the work to be done as set forth in this RFP.
That Robert J. Molinaro have made examination of the services as applicable to the Proposal, and fully
understand the character of the work to be done.
That, having made the necessary examination, the undersigned hereby proposes to furnish all
materials, vehicles, plant, equipment and facilities, and to perform all labor and services which may be
required to do said work with the time fixed and upon the terms and conditions provided in the
Collection Service Agreement, at the compensation levels set forth and calculated on the Collection
Service Compensation Proposal Form above and that such compensation levels shall be valid for a
period of one hundred eighty (180) days from the submission date of the Proposal.
PROPOSER
Secretary
~1J-'~I' rn-J"AI 0 A tV
i ~-
Proposer Name
A California Limited Liability Company
Date 'Iltvtr / S-, J.ðt,Lj
,
4.'Ù'S.Q2/§Þ.) 1.ì;
107 ~ "V^
!III~I~I\\
~~
Page 4
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
CITY of Dublin
Collection Service Compensation Proposal Form D-1
Agreement Service Level
Agreement Year 1
1. Collection Compensation Element
2. Tonnage for Calculating Disposal Compensation Element
3. Disposal Tipping Fee (To be completed by CITY)
4. Disposal Compensation Element (To be completed by
CITY)
$ 4,176,900
27,039 Tons
5. Container Compensation Element
6. Fee Compensation Element (To be completed by CITY)
7. Total (To be completed by City)
Proposers should provide the required information on lines 1,2 and 5 of Form 0·1.
Aqreement Service Level. The Agreement service level includes Collection Services as set forth in the
Collection Services Agreement in Section five (5) of this RFP. Specifically this service level includes:
· the provision of Large Item Collection Services to SFD Service Units up to three (3)
times per Agreement Year, at up to seven (7) cubic yards per collection event;
· the provision of SFD Organic Waste Collection Service;
· the inclusion of E·Waste in Large Item Collection Service; and
· the use of alternative fuel or "clean air vehicles".
Disposal Facilitv
This Compensation proposal is based on the use of the Vasco Road disposal facility.
In the event the City selects a different disposal (or transfer) facility the Collection Compensation
Element Contained on Collection Service Compensation Forms 0·1 through 0·5 will change by the
following percentage.
Altamont Landfill: Increase 0 % Decrease %
Vasco Road Landfill Increase % Decrease %
Davis Street Transfer Station Increase 9.57 % Decrease %
Other (fill in-) Facility Increase % Decrease %
,..,.'>..:;.";¢)
!1t""'~~IJ(",>, \\\
1,1"1.\;'_· ,-......) :
\~'f~'5'-"/l'
Page 5
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
CITY of Dublin
Collection Service Compensation Proposal Form D~2
Option 1 Service Level
1. Collection Compensation Element
2. Tonnage for Calculating Disposal Compensation Element
3. Disposal Tipping Fee (To be completed by CITY)
4. Disposal Compensation Element (To be completed by CITY)
5. Container Compensation Element
6. Fee Compensation Element (To be completed by CITY)
7. Total (To be completed by City)
Agreement Year 1
$ 4,125,000
27,039 Tons
$ 177,000
Option 1 - SFD Oraanic Waste Collection Service - Form 0-2. Option 1 is the removal of the SFO
Organic Waste Collection Service program and the implementation of a SFO Green Waste
Collection Service program.
Proposers should provide the required information on lines 1, 2 and 5 of Form 0-2 under the Option
1 service level.
.;:, ,'t i)'."
II(~~¿\;\
~:t!r$'
Page 6
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Adden'dum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
CITY of Dublin
Collection Service Compensation Proposal Form 0-3
Option 2 Service Level
1. Collection Compensation Element
2. Tonnage for Calculating Disposal Compensation Element
3. Disposal Tipping Fee (To be completed by CITY)
4. Disposal Compensation Element (To be completed by CITY)
5. Container Compensation Element
6. Fee Compensation Element (To be completed by CITY)
7. Total (To be completed by City)
Agreement Year 1
$ 4,176,900
27, 039 Tons
$ 177,000
Option 2 - Larqe Item Collection Service - Form 0-3. Option 2 is the reduction of the Large Item
Collection Service level to SFO Service Units from seven (7) cubic yards per collection event to five
(5) cubic yards per collection event.
Proposers should provide the required information on lines 1, 2 and 5 of Form 0-3 based on the
Option 2 service level.
;:';2-.'
l·t,I~E~~;;;r'. \.\\.
;; -- .,';J.)
".\i'ill~...,ri¡i;
L,\\, {'\. ':\.,) ,1//
Page 7
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
CITY of Dublin
Collection Service Compensation Proposal Form D-4
Option 3 Service Level
1. Collection Compensation Element
2. Tonnage for Calculating Disposal Compensation Element
3. Disposal Tipping Fee (To be completed by CITY)
4. Disposal Compensation Element (To be completed by CITY)
5. Container Compensation Element
6. Fee Compensation Element (To be completed by CITY)
7. Total (To be completed by City)
Agreement Year 1
$ 4,114,000
27,039 Tons
$ 177,000
Option 3 - E~Waste - Form D~4. Option 3 is the elimination of E-waste from the Large Item
Collection Service programs. Under this option, the HHW Drop-off event will become an E-waste
and HHW Drop-off Event.
Proposers should provide the required information on lines 1, 2 and 5 of Form 0-4 based on the
Option 3 service level.
:<:..-:::..,,·.;,Iié:;'>¡
III¿:-,..~~ ,II.
\;~'(;~,~ ¡;/.'
\,\\., ,~j ,'Ii
Page 8
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Collection Service Compensation Proposal Form D.,6
Multi-Service Discount
Agreement Year 1
1. Collection Compensation Element
%
MultÎ-Service Discount - Form 0-6. Proposers proposing to offer both Collection Services and
Disposal ServÎces shall complete line 1 of Form 0-6 to indicate the discount, if any that will be
applied to the Collection Compensation Elements proposed on Forms 0-1 through 0-5 in the event
both Services are awarded to the proposer.
:' ii'T5tJr
ù¿~~~~~(¡~
!]LI(~~$!!
'~\. ~ ..' Øj!
~'(':\i!TFð~íi\~/
Page 9
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Form 0-7
Emergency Service Rates - Employees
The following cost proposal form is to be utilized by the Proposer to provide the CITY with the hourly
service rates to be charged for the provision of emergency services as set forth in the Collection
Service Agreement.
FORM D-7
EMERGENCY SERVICE RATES· EMPLOYEES
Page 1 of 1 Pages
Labor Position Hourly Rate Hourly Rate
Monday. Saturday Sundays
Operations Manager $ 100.00 $ 130.00
Route Supervisor $ 100.00 $ 130.00
Driver $ 75.00 $ 85.00
Recycling Coordinator $ 75.00 $ 85.00
Clerical $ 35.00 $ 35.00
~(~'!:Jj[íþ.~
iCY ;g.. '«1\
,11IjÆiI~\\\\\
1191'(;& ~k¡1
'~",-~-!!ø:
~c!!dl!;!)O'-':;.\>
Page 10
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Form 0-8
Emergency Service Rates - Equipment
The following cost proposal form is to be utilized by the Proposer to provide the CITY with the hourly
service rates to be charged for the provision of emergency services as set forth in the Collection
Service Agreement.
FORM 0-8
EMERGENCY SERVICE RATES - EQUIPMENT
Page 1 of 1 Pages
Labor Position or Equipment Type Make & Model Hourly Rate
Vehicle Roll Off $ 56,00
Vehicle Rear Loader $ 76.00
Vehicle Front End Loader $ 76.00
Vehicle Automated Side Loader $ 76.00
,<,>~;ji?f:)\
IIÌi&~~\\\\\
q41 '\:ΕΎ: ~!/+\~,!
'~r,~:%I¡
'" ~1tlfS.~~~:i~·'/·
Page 11
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Form E
Disposal Service Rate Proposal Forms
Prior to preparing the Disposal Service Rate Proposal Forms, Proposers should review Article 5 of the
Disposal Service Agreement of the RFP.
Proposers should note that except as set forth in the Disposal Service Agreement, Disposal Rates as
proposed will not be adjusted over the term of the Agreement.
The Undersigned hereby certifies as follows:
That have personally and carefully examined the specifications and instructions
for the work to be done as set forth in this RFP.
That have made examination of the services as applicable to the Proposal, and
fully understand the character of the work to be done.
That, having made the necessary examination, the undersigned hereby proposes to furnish all
materials, vehicles, plant, equipment and facilities, and to perform all labor and services which may be
required to do said work with the time fixed and upon the terms and conditions provided in the Disposal
Service Agreement, at the rates set forth and calculated on the Disposal Service Rate Proposal Forms
and that such rates shall be valid for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days from the submission
date of the Proposal.
PROPOSER
P res ide nt/Partner/Owne r/Other
Secretary
Proposer Name
Individual:
Partnership: Joint Venture
Corporation (State of Incorporation)
A
Date
z'):ØJ;>(0ì~
;;7&~¿<\\\\
¡]"I~~I~;
~"'~'~:
CliJ~>·~/
Page 12
City of Dublin
Collection and Disposal Services
Form E-1
Disposal Service Rates
Ten (10) Year Term
Agreement Year
Beginning
Disposal
Element
($/ton)
July 1, 2005
July 1, 2006
July 1, 2007
July 1, 2008
July 1, 2009
July1,2010
July 1,2011
July 1, 2012
July 1, 2013
July 1, 2014
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Disposal Government Total per Ton Disposal
Fee Element Rate
($/ton)
Proposers should complete the appropriate columns for each year based on the type of program that
they are proposing.
.\)~~Jil!J?/j,
i::>~.I\
:t/f(,@I~\\\\\
\l'I~l~tl
~, ~. j/j/
''1'-!)lìK"'i\.~~\~/
Page 13
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Form E-2
Government Fee Components of Disposal Service Rates
Disposal Government Fee
Component
$/Ton
(a) California Integrated Waste Management Board (AB1220)
Fee
$-
(b) Alameda County Local Enforcement Agency $-
LandfillfTransfer Station Fee(s)
(c) Alameda County Business License Fee $-
(d) Alameda County "Measure D" Fee $-
(e) Alameda County Waste Management Authority Facilities Fee $-
(f) Alameda County Waste Management Authority Household
Hazardous Waste Fee
$-
(g) County Planning Department Fee $-
(h) County Open Space Fee $-
(i) Other Fees $-
Total Government Fee Elements July 1, 2005 $ _
Proposers should provide the details of the government fee elements shown on Form E-1 for the
Agreement Year beginning July 1, 2005.
.,.;~TIjl:~)~
/'-/ ~ ~<h
'1111@1~1¡'~
(1'J1~~~2
\\~_!~
,""j¿!JS:J!ò'3~
Page 14
City of Dublin
Collection and Disposal Services
Agreement Year
Beginning
Disposal Element
($/ton)
July 1, 2005
July 1, 2006 %
July 1, 2007 %
July 1, 2008 %
July 1, 2009 %
July 1, 2010 %
July 1,2011 %
July 1,2012 %
July 1,2013 %
July 1, 2014 %
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Form E-3
Multi-Service Discount
Disposal Service Rates
Ten (10) Year Term
Disposal Government Fee
Element
Total per Ton Disposal
Rate
($/ton)
Multi-Service Discount - Form E-3. Proposers proposing to offer both Collection Services and
Disposal Services shall complete the appropriate columns of Form E~3 to indicate the discount
percentage, if any, that will be applied to the Disposal Elements, as appropriate, of the Rates
proposed on Form E-1 in the event both Services are awarded to the proposer.
, .<'\~D)(:ìJ)
''-;'>·~·/À
11I~1~,..\\\\
i\\\\\~. ~?-iJ~. ))J!
.~" ~ '1M!
·'..()tm~0.Sj;/'
Page 15
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Form E-4
Disposal Service Rates
Optional Twenty (20) Year Term
Agreement Year Disposal Element Disposal Government Total per Ton
Beginning ($/ton) Fee Element ($/ton) Disposal Rate
July 1, 2005
July 1, 2006
July 1, 2007
July 1, 2008
July 1, 2009
July 1, 2010
July 1, 2011
July1,2012
July 1, 2013
July 1, 2014
July 1, 2015
July 1, 2016
July 1, 2017
July 1, 2018
July 1, 2019
July 1, 2020
July 1, 2021
July 1, 2022
July 1, 2023
July 1, 2024
Proposers electing to propose the optional straight twenty (20) year term with no extensions should
complete the appropriate columns for each year based on the Disposal program that they are
proposing.
,~:)~ì?±,,,~
Ìlt~,.j \\\
!Nr~IE>. )~I
~\, ~ //J))
'-{¿tl1}\"\-çS\':Y
Page 16
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Form E-5
Multi-Service Discount
Disposal Service Rates
Optional Twenty (20) Year Term
Agreement Year
Beginning
July 1, 2005
July 1, 2006
July 1, 2007
July 1, 2008
July 1, 2009
July 1, 2010
July 1, 2011
July 1,2012
July1,2013
July 1, 2014
July 1, 2015
July 1, 2016
July 1,2017
July 1, 2018
July 1,2019
July 1, 2020
July 1, 2021
July 1, 2022
July 1, 2023
July 1, 2024
Disposal Element
($/ton)
%
%
'%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Disposal Government Fee
Element ($/ton)
Total per Ton Disposal
Rate
Multi-Service Discount - Form E~5. Proposers electing to propose on the optional straight twenty
(20) year term and proposing to offer both Collection Services and Disposal Services shall complete
the appropriate columns of Form E-5 to indicate the discount percentage, if any, that will be applied
to the Disposal Elements, as appropriate, of the Rates proposed on Form E-4 in the event both
Services are awarded to the proposer.
%
.~·~~t'T5¡,ÌJ'"
Ù~~~;.;:~\\\
1191~~I~:;
\~\.~.gl
"',I"..~--:.,\,.,
Page 17
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Collection Service Information Forms
SFD Collection Services
1. SFD Solid Waste Collection Service
A. Number of Vehicles 2
B. Number of Drivers 2
C. Number of Helpers 0
D, Number of Routes 2
E. Number of Landfill Trips per Day 4
2. SFD Organic Collection Service
A, Number of Vehicles 2
B. Number of Drivers 2
C. Number of Helpers 0
D, Number of Routes 2
E. Number of processing Trips per Day 2
3. SFD Recycling Collection Service
A. Number of Vehicles 2
8. Number of Drivers 2
C. Number of Helpers 0
D. Number of Routes 2
E. Number of processing Trips per Day 2
,,{:9!dJ{V-ÌÀ
'-Y~"{J~
,{~(~: E>J~~I
~,-~,
~J/JJj;§::>
Page 18
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Collection Service Information Forms
Commercial, City & MFD Collection Services
4. Commercial, City & MFD Solid Waste Collection Service
. Ä. Number of Vehicles 4
B. Number of Drivers 4
C. Number of Helpers 0
D. Number of Routes 4
E. Number of Landfill Trips per Day 8
5. Commercial, City & MFD Organic Waste Collection Service
A. Number of Vehicles 0.5
B. Number of Drivers 0.5
C. Number of Helpers 0
D. Number of Routes 1
E. Number of processing Trips per Day 1
6. Commercial, City & MFD Recycling Collection Service
A. Number of Vehicles 0.5
B. Number of Drivers 0.5
C. Number of Helpers 0
D. Number of Routes 1
E. Number of processing Trips per Day 1
_.s):),.~'j.LY~?>
''-~ ~\!\
,III I \11\
IN <e£ B>1"'1
\~, ~/#!/
....(.!..ÚTi:0.i..~~\y
Page 19
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Collection Service Information Forms
Other Collection Services
7. Large Item Collection Service
A. Number of Vehicles
B. Number of Drivers
C. Number of Helpers
D. Number of Routes
1
o
1
8. Roll off Collection Service
A. Number of Vehicles
B. Number of Drivers
C. Number of Helpers
D. Number of Tips
1
1
o
8
9. Other Collection Service (Rear End Loaderl
A. Number of Vehicles
B. Number of Drivers
C. Number of Helpers
D. Number of Routes
E. Number of Processing Trips per Day
1
1
o
1
1
".'\.-<''--~~f Q{¡¡~>
,<../ ~ '\0
"II~I~\\\\
II~~ ~I",I
~~,<&,'!!I/
\"'..:'iJE<S;"V/
Page 20
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Collection Service Information Forms
Collection Service Tonnage
10. SFD Solid Waste Collection Service Tonnage
A. Tonnage Collected
B. Tonnage Disposed
C. Tonnage Diverted
6,818
6,818
o
11. SFD Organic Collection Service
A. Tonnage Collected
B. Tonnage Disposed
C. Tonnage Diverted
3,778
o
3,778
12. SFD Recycling Collection Service
A. Tonnage Collected
B. Tonnage Disposed
C. Tonnage Diverted
3,992
o
3,992
13. Commercial, City & MFD Solid Waste Collection Service
A. Tonnage Collected
B. Tonnage Disposed
C. Tonnage Diverted
14,476
14,476
o
14. Commercial, City & MFD Organic Waste Collection Service
A. Tonnage Collected 2,510
B. Tonnage Disposed 0
C. Tonnage Diverted 2,510
15. Commercial, City & MFD Recycling Collection Service
A. Tonnage Collected
B. Tonnage Disposed
C. Tonnage Diverted
3,884
o
3,884
,~..("9fbÞ~)~
(.';/1 ~ ~<i\
;//I{ml~'''\ì
1'91'($ ~rl
'\~/,Ø.!
't:;,.I[iK:~>·;;/
Page 21
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Collection Service Information Forms
Collection Service Tonnage
16. Large Item Collection Service
A. Tonnage Collected
B. Tonnage Disposed
C. Tonnage Diverted
450
225
225
17. Roll off Collection Service
A. Tonnage Collected
B. Tonnage Disposed
c. Tonnage Diverted
6,133
5,520
613
18. Other Collection Service (Other}
A. Tonnage Collected
B. Tonnage Disposed
C. Tonnage Diverted
unknown
unknown
unknown
19. Total
A. Tonnage Collected
B. Tonnage Disposed (Must aqree to Form 0·1 Line 2)
C. Tonnage Diverted
42,041
27,039
15,002
"'0~~/ì~
í,'¡¡ ,;J."~ ,'I
Ilq(~~~,
,~ ~:f;j
¡2~0Y'
Page 22
FORMS
FORM F
GARBAGE COLLECTION VEHICLES
(Residential Side Loader)
1. Manufacturer and Model
A. Cab and Chassis
8. Body
C. Engine
D. Transmission
2. Number of Vehicles
3. Cab and Chassis:
A. Cab Height
8. Walk-In Cab
C. Number of Axles
D. Dual Drive
Auto Car
Heil Automated
Cummis - ISL 8.3 G
Allison 3000 RDS 5spd
2
94 inches
yes X no
3
yes X no
City of Dublin
Attachment 1 to Addendum 4
Collection and Disposal Services
Collection Service Information Forms
Collection Service Census
20. In the event a proposer is basing compensation numbers on census data other than that provided
by the City in the RFP that information shall be disclosed.
Section 7
FORM F (Cant.)
6. Purchase cost of each vehicle
7. Fuel type
229,000
CNG
5
mpg
8. Fuel usage
9. Emissions rating
A. CO
B. HC (total hydrocarbons)
C. NOx
D. Particulate Matter
10. Safety Features
11. Color
Gas: 1.3
Gas: N/A
Gas: N/A
Gas: .01
Fullv Automated
White & Green
g/bhp/hr
g/bhp/hr
g/bhp/hr
g/bhp/hr
12. Use additional pages to provide the following narratives:
A. Discuss past experience with this type of vehicle.
B. Discuss the advantages of this type of vehicle as related to:
8.1 Efficiency
8.2 Productivity
8.3 Ease of Operation
8.4 Cost of Operation
8.5 Clean Air Standards
PLEASE SEE OUR NARRATIVE ON PAGE 50 OF
OUR PROPOSAL FOR COMPLETE DETAILS.