Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 SOLID WASTE PROPOSAL EVAL 02-20-07AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 20,2007 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO SOLID WASTE PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA AND THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SUMMARY Staff's authority to modify the solid waste contract proposal evaluation criteria and the request for proposal has been questioned by one potential proposer. Staff is requesting the. City Council to review and approve the proposed modifications to the proposal evaluation criteria and authorize the Public Works Director to approve any further non-substantive modifications and amendments to the RFP as deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed modifications to the proposal evaluation criteria and affirm the authority of the Public Works Director to approve and issue future non-substantive amendments to the Request for Proposal as necessary and appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. BACKGROUND On January 15, 2007, the City Council approved the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Solid Waste Services. The document that the City Council approved was a draft that was substantially complete. Staff indicated in its presentation to the City Council that future amendments may be required. After further review by staff, several minor modifications were made to the RFP and the proposal evaluation criteria prior to releasing the RFP to the public. Only one of eight potential proposers has questioned staff's authority to make changes to the RFP and evaluation criteria. In keeping with the letter and intent of Measure EE, staff agrees that it is appropriate for the City Council to approve any changes to the proposal evaluation criteria. One change being questioned involves a requirement that any Material Recovery Facilities proposed for use by the hauler be fully permitted as of the proposal submittal date. Although it was not listed in the evaluation criteria shown in the draft RFP approved by the City Council, staff believes this is a reasonable addition to the evaluation criteria requirement that reflects the intent of contract language (Article 6, Sections 6.02 and 6.04, attached) that was included in the RFP document approved by the City Council. The requirement will insure that the waste diversion strategies and the proposed rates identified by the hauler will not be conditioned upon the use of facilities that mayor may not be available. The revisions to the evaluation criteria made by staff are bolded and underlined in the attached revised evaluation criteria. With regard to the RFP revisions, it should be noted that staff routinely issues requests for proposals and issues contract bid documents for a wide variety of projects and services. Staff normally issues revisions and amendments to these documents as necessary without City Council approval. The addition of Section 3.1.10 (attached) to the technical requirements section of the RFP revision was also questioned by the potential proposer. This section requires that detailed information of waste diversion strategies and the use of proven technology be included in the proposal. In reviewing the draft RFP prior to release, staff noted that this important requirement was specified in proposal form 22 (attached) the RFP and staff sought to clarify and emphasize the importance of the requirement by placing it in a more prominent location in the RFP and by including it in the. proposal evaluation criteria. Staff anticipates other revisions, clarifications, or addendum to the RFP as a result of inquiries and comments by all potential proposers. Staff has always anticipated that consistent interpretations of this technical document would be required. The schedule provided to the City Council indicated that staff would release responses to those inquires and any necessary amendments by February 20th. Staff will not make any further changes to the proposal evaluation criteria without City Council approval. However, staff is recommending that the City Council affirm that staff is authorized to issue RFP amendments as required subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. Tim D. Serlet Director of Public Works/City Engineer Administrative Services Manager Public Works Department Attachments: Contract Sections 6.02 to 6.04 Revised Proposal Evaluation Criteria Proposal Form 22 Section 3.1.10 of Technical Requirements ARTICLE 6. PROCESSING AND MARKETING OF RECYCABLE MATERIALS 6.01 General. The costs proposed by Contractor include the costs of furnishing of all labor, supervision, equipment, materials, supplies and all other items necessary to perform the processing and materials marketing services required in a thorough, workmanlike and efficient matter. 6.02 Permits. Contractor shall utilize only processing facilities that are fully licensed and permitted under all applicable federal, state, regional and local laws and regulations. On or before June 1, 2007 Contractor shall deliver to City a package containing copies of all of the permits for the Materials Recovery Facilities (Clean MRF and Dirty MRF}, the Compost Facility, the Construction and Demolition Debris '. i Processing Facility.and for any, other Processing Facility approved by City that Contractor will use to process materials collected within City. Contractor shall simultaneously submit original signed contracts with each processing facility (unless owned by Contractor) evidencing the terms and conditions under which Contractor is entitled to utilize said facilities for processing of City's materials. 6.03 Deliverv of Residue to Landfill. Contractor shall deliver, or arrange to be delivered, all non-recyclable Residue from the operations at the Materials Recovery Facility (both Clean MRF and Dirty MRF), the Compost Facility, and the Construction and Demolition Debris Processing Facility to the City designated landfill. The parties acknowledge that City's existing arrangements with the Orange County Landfill System will expire in 2008. City will be responsible for renewing these arrangements and shall notify Contractor when such renewal has taken place. In the event that the Orange County Landfill System becomes unavailable to City for Disposal of MSW from City, Contractor shall assist City in identifying and researching potential alternate Disposal Facilities and shall cooperate with City in switching to the alternate Disposal Facility identified by City. In such event, the provisions of Section 4.12 and Section 12.04 shall apply if the change in Disposal Site creates a change (either an increase or decrease) in the cost of transport or Disposal of MSW. 6.04 MRF. Compost and C/D Facilitv OperatinCl Reauirements. Contractor shall operate the Materials Recovery Facility, Compost Facility and Construction and Demolition Debris Processing Facility it owns in compliance with all applicable federal, state, regional and local laws and regulations and shall adhere to the requirements of all permits for each facility. If Contractor is using facilities it does not own, it shall be Contractor's responsibility to investigate and determine that said facilities are operating in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and permit requirements. -If, at any time during the Term, said facilities are not operating in compliance with all legal requirements, it shall be the duty of Contractor to immediately report the situation to the City. Upon receipt of such information, City may conduct an independent investigation of the situation, may require Contractor to utilize a different facility while City is conducting its investigation, or may take other actions City deems reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the City, its customers, public health and safety and the environment. The MRF must include processing lines for cleanup of Source-Separated Recyclable Materials, sorting of Single Stream Recyclables, as well as sorting of 'A' Route MSW. The Composting Facility must be capable of processing residential and commercial Yardwaste. The Construction and Demolition Debris Processing Facility must be capable of processing all of the Construction and Demolition Debris that is collected by the Contractor in the City. Criteria Organization Contract Exceptions Technical Capability Proposed Approach Table 5-1. Proposal Evaluation Criteria (revised) Description . Role of team members on the project · Contractual arrangement among team members . Explanation of how the local management and corporate structure are linked (if applicable) . Key personnel assigned to the project . Experience of assigned personnel in collection and materials diversion operations . Client references demonstrating Proposer's ability to maintain long- term relationships with municipalities, including cooperation in providing requested information in a timely manner and avoidance of litigation and arbitration in settling disputes . Pendin liti ation . Number, nature and materiality of the exceptions taken to the terms of the contract. . Demonstrated experience in: y Implementation and administration of collection services for MSW, recyclables,. yardwaste, andfoodwaste from residential, commercial, and institutional generators. y Operation of special recycling programs such as e-waste, tires, used oil and oil filters, etc. y Minimum 3 years of experience providing reliable residential, commercial and roll off collection services to a jurisdiction equal to or larger in size than the City of Tustin. y Operation or successful use of a fully permitted Materials Recovery Facility. y Operation or successful use of a fully permitted composting facility for yardwaste and any other organics identified as diverted in the proposal. y Operation or successful use of a fully permitted C&D processing facility. y Maintaining accurate records and providing complete, accurate, useful data to cities/counties on a consistent, timely basis. · Demonstrated ability to provide high quality customer services over the duration of a 5-7 year contract (or longer). · Demonstrated ability to conduct public education services including an explanation of experience and copies of materials produced for ast ro rams. · Thoroughness of proposed approach · Adequacy and reliability of collection equipment . Proposed MRF: y Processing capacity reserved for City of Tustin y Processing capabilities y Residue percentage y Type and configuration of processing equipment y Full ermitted as of ro osal submittal date . Proposed composting facility: y Capacity reserved for City of Tustin y Processing method(s) y Residue percentage y End use(s) for diverted material(s) y Fully permitted as of proposal submittal date . Proposed C&D processing facility: y Capacity reserved for City of Tustin y Processing equipment and configuration y Residue percentage y End uses for diverted material(s) y Fully permitted as of proposal submittal date . Proposed Waste-to-Energy facility (if applicable): y Capacity reserved for City of Tustin y Delivery schedule confirmed by facility for Tustin y Fully permitted as of proposal submittal date . Public education strategy . Implementation plan: y Ability to meet implementation schedule y Documented 'ability to provide necessary equipment y Staffing plan . Types of training a~d educational programs for managers and operational staff . Environmental responsibility including: y Level and type of vehicle fleet emissions y Use of recycled products (including paper, motor oil, and recapped tires) on or off-site y Use of the least toxic alternatives in vector and pest management y Training drivers in fuel efficient driving practices y Source reduction efforts . Willingness, ability and past performance in thorough monthly and annual reporting of collected, diverted, and disposed tons, including providing detailed reporting from all processing facilities, landfills, and transfer stations. . Proposed proarams use proven collection and processina methodoloaies. Proposed technoloaies have documented record of success in iurisdictions similar to Tustin in size and characteristics of wastestreamll Financial Capability . Financing capacity and strength . Evidence that financing requirements will be fulfilled . Financial strength and stability of the Proposer to guarantee performance of the contract . Demonstrated ability to accurately estimate collection and diversion program costs and results . Demonstrated capacity to handle risk factors in the contract, such as fluctuations in market value of recyclables . Demonstrated record and capability of consistent and accurate financial reporting . Demonstrated ability to perform the scope of services in municipal contracts for the costs/rates agreed to in the contract . Demonstration of corporate ethics Diversion Strategy . Does proposal maximize diversion rates and participation levels . Does proposal minimize contamination of recyclables, yardwaste, foodwaste, C&D waste . Demonstrated ability to meet AB939 diversion requirements in another jurisdiction the size of the City of Tustin or larger . Number of FTE devoted to implementation and maintenance of diversion programs . Experience of assigned FTEs with diversion program implementation in other cities or counties . Total proposed diversion in tons as percent of collected tons. . Reasonableness and technical feasibility of proposed diverted tons and percents. Cost Evaluation . Proposed costs: y Basic services y Additional services . Supporting documentation y Completeness y Reasonableness Procedural . Proposer's compliance with: Compliance y Requested proposal format and requirements y No a.dditional or alternate proarams proposed y City Council proposal protocol y Requests for additional information or explanation of proposal Proposal Form 22 CONTRACTOR'S DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF DIVERSION PROGRAMS The Contractor will provide a detailed .description of each diversion program that is identified in Attachment B, Scope of Work. These descriptions shall be complete in all respects containing details on collection routing, materials handling, container usage, processing, and assumptions on amounts of material projected to be diverted. Any educational component for each of the programs shall also be described fully. Where applicable please refer to the corresponding CIWMB PARIS codes. 3.1.10 Complete Description of All Proposed Diversion Programs The selected contractor will provide all of the collection and diversion programs listed in the contract and Attachment B. On proposal form 22 proposers will provide a detailed description of each of the programs in Attachment B (listed by PARIS code), including the number and types of collection vehicles and containers to be used, collection methodology, plan for roll out of each program, public education efforts for each program, and expected diversion in tons. Proposed diversion programs should utilize proven methodologies and collection and processing methods that have a documented track record of success in other jurisdictions similar in size and waste stream characteristics as the City of Tustin. Programs that utilize unproven methodologies or technologies will not be considered. Proposers shall not submit additional diversion programs not listed in Attachment B., nor shall they submit alternates. On proposal form 13 proposers will list each of the programs (again, by PARIS code) and will provide the projected percentage of the total tons to be collected by the contractor, that each of the diversion programs in Attachment B will divert. Proposal form 13 will also show the total percentage diversion projected by the proposer for all diversion programs.