HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 256-08TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Re _ r7
H ONORABL-E-C-IT~ (~O ~NC~
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
JUNE 23, 2008 CMR:256:08
DIRECTION ON DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL AND PROGRAMS TO
PURSUE AND REVIEW OF RATE IMPACTS AND DIVERSION
COMPARISON RANGES FOR BASELINE SERVICES, ZERO WASTE
SERVICES AND OTHER SERVICE INNOVATIONS IN THE NEW
SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING AND ORGANICS SERVICES
AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to pursue the following programs for the new solid
waste and recyclable material and organics collection and processing agreement based on cost
impacts of up to 17.2 percem for the Refuse Fund and a projected annual diversion of 21,579
tons of materials, or 11 percent additional diversion to the City:
RFP Scenario 1:Baseline services with rate impact up to 6.4% above the FY 2008-09
Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) budget, and projected
additional diversion of up to 750 tons.
o RFP Scenario 2:Zero Waste Services with rate impacts totaling 10.8 % and a projected
21,579 annual additional tons of diversion through the following
programs:
1)Expanding organics materials collection only to the commercial
sector with a rote impact up to 3.5% and a projected 4,500
additional tons diverted annually.
2)Expanding single stream materials only for items that have a
sustainable market with a reduced rate impact of .5% and a
projection of 2,418 additional tons diverted annually.
3) Expanding Clean-up Day collection for reuse and recycling with a
rate impact up to 1% and a projected 400 additional tons diverted
annually.
4) Enhancing recycling through mandatory participation with a rate
impact up to 3% and a projected 8,919 additional tons diverted
annually.
5) Increasing C&D diversion with a rate impact of 2.6% and a
projected 5,342 additional tons diverted annually.
6)Enhancing commercial recycling with a rate impact of .2% and
curremly unquantifiable tonnage diversion.
CMR:256:08 Page 1 of 8
RFP Scenario 3:Innovative Services with no rate impacts and currently unquantifiable
tonnage diversion.
1) C&D discount coupons for self haulers.
Staff does not recommend pursuing the following programs:
RFP Scenario 2: Zero Waste Services:
1)Expanding organic materials to the residential sector.
2)Expanding single stream materials that do not have a sustainable
market.
RFP Scenario 3 Innovative Services:
1)RecycleBank for residential recycling
2)Multi-family and commercial solid waste processing
3)Single-Family solid waste Processing
4)Wet/Dry collection
5)Anaerobic digestion of commercial food waste
BACKGROUND
The current agreement with PASCO to collect and transport solid waste and recyclables within
the City of Palo Alto will end on June 30, 2009. The procurement process for a new agreement
began in February 2008. The projected schedule for awarding a new contract is September 2008
with new services beginning July 1, 2009.
At the Council meeting on December 17, 2007 (CMR:459:07, Attachment A), the Council
approved a three step process for reviewing the proposals: 1) selection of programs based on the
cost impacts and estimated diversion results without identifying the proposing companies, 2)
selection of the top proposer to negotiate with and 3) award of contract. This report covers the
first stage of this process.
DISCUSSION
In October 2005, the City adopted a Zero Waste Resolution and set a goal to divert 73 percent of
waste by 2011 and to strive for zero waste to all landfills utilized by the City by 2021. In
October 2007, the City Council approved a Zero Waste Operational Plan (ZWOP) that
recommended programs to implement in order to reach the diversion goals.
The RFP solicited proposals for three different scenarios: RFP Scenario 1 - baseline services;
RFP Scenario 2 - Zero Waste services; and RFP Scenario 3 - other service innovations. This
report takes information from the proposals received and provides an estimate on the rate impact
and diversion for the RFP Scenarios. The rate impact was estimated by using the highest
proposed costs, the Refuse Fund’s ten year forecasting tools, and the estimate that a one percent
rate increase is approximately equivalent to $275,755 in services or revenues generated from
rates.
RFP Scenario 1 - Baseline Services
Baseline services include, for the most part, basic solid waste, recycling and yard trimmings
services that are currently provided by PASCO. Comparisons of existing PASCO services with
the new baseline services differ in the areas of land use changes, collection service changes and
impacts from the competitive solicitation process.Examples of these differences include:
CMR:256:08 Page 2 of 8
Recyciing Center operation is, ~ " " ~no~ mctudea; !ira_Steal use of the current Geng Road site; land~!i
areas for container storage .are no ionger available; standard location for cotiection changing
from backyard to curbside; recycling buddies distributed to multi-family customers; start up cost;
per~%rmance bond req,uirements; net recyclab!e materials processing revenues; and allocated
depreciation.
The new baseline services wi!i resNt in an estimated rate impact of up m 6.4 percent above FY
2008-09 refuse rates and a projected additional diversion impact of up to 7,500 tons. _This
increase is due to changes made to the new baseline se~_~ice leve!s and estimated
adjustmev2~s needed when compmdng FY 2008-09 costs to FY 2009-! 0 projections.
RFP Scenario 2 - Zero Waste Services
Zero Waste services include the foilo-¢A_ng six addifionai programs that were reco_mmended in t_he
Cit3~’s Zero Waste Operational Plan:
!) Expanding organics materials (food waste collection and processing);
2) Expanding single stream materials;
3) Expanding the C!ean-Up Day collection for reuse and recycling;
4) Enhancing recycling through mandatory participation;
5) increasing constraction and demolition (C&D) diversion; .and
6) Enhancing conmaercial recycling (providing recycling to all businesses).
The folio,aft_rig table shows the projected rate impacts and estimated tormage diversion for each of
the six programs.
Zero Waste Programs
Expanding organics materials
Residemial
Commercial
Subtota!
Expanding single stream materials
Residentia!
Commercial
Subtotal
Expanding the Clean-Up Day collection for
reuse and recycling
Mandatory Participation
Projected
Highest Rate impact
4.7%
3.5 %
8.2 %
Estimated
ZWOP Tormage
Diversion
2,00!
4,500
(.! %)
.6%
614
1,804
6,50!
(.5%)2,418
3)! %400
4)
3%
2.6%
614
!,804
2,001
4,500
Recycling
Residential
Commercial
Organics
Residential
Commercial
.3 %
(.2 %)
1%
!.9 %
8,919
5,342
Subtotal
5) Increasing C&D Diversion
CMR:256:08 Page 3 of 8
Tot~ I 15.5 %23,580
*Zero Waste Operational Plan did not estimate additional projected tonnage to be recovered
from th~s program
The total projected rate impact for all of the Zero Waste programs is i5.5 percent above FY
2008-09 refuse rates with an estimated diversion of 23,580. StafFs recommendation is to expand
organics materials only to the commercial sector reducing the total rate impact of RFP
Scenario 2 - Zero Waste seiwices from 15.5 percent to 10.8 percent above FY 2008-09 refuse
rates and a projected annual diversion of 2i,579 tons of materials.
Recommendations for Zero Waste Programs not to pursue at this time
The criteria for staff recommendations -were based on rate impact, estirnated diversion and
market sustaindbitity. Staff is not recommendLn_g to Counci! the fol!owing progrmnas to pursue
for the fo!lovfing reasons:
1)Expanding organic materials for the residential customers. The 2005 Waste Composition
Study reposed that there were 18,000 tons of organic materials remaining in the -waste
stream. The majority of these materials, approximately 89 percent, are from the commercial
sector. Review of proposals indicates that orgm~cs collection is considerably more
expensive per ton for the residential sector than for the commercial sector. Stmff
recommends expanding the organics collection to the co_rrmaercial sector where there is the
potential for ~dce as much of a diversion impact and baif the rate impact to customers. S ~taff
also recommends considering expanding the service to the residential sector at a later date
when it becomes more cost effective.
2)Expanding single stream recycling, in expanding single stream recycling, proposers included
adding textiles and aseptic materials, but reported that they do not have reliable or
sustainable markets, and that the fluctuating demand for these materials results in them
having to be stored from time to time unti! there is a market demand. Stmff is recommending
to only expand materials that can main ~tain an ongoing sustainable market and to minimize
stockpiling of these resources.
RFP Scenario 3 - Other Service Innovations
The purpose of this scenario was to allow the proposers to suggest other creative ways for
maximizing the diversion of materials from landfill disposal in furtherance of the City’s Zero
Waste Policy and Zero Waste Operational Plan. The proposed service innovations received
included the following:
1)C&D discounts coupons for self haulers
2)RecycleBank for residential recycling
3)Multi-family and commercia! solid waste processing
4)Single-Family so!id waste processing
5)Wet/Dry collection
6)Anaerobic digestion of commercia! food waste
The following table shows the projected rate impacts and estimated tonnage diversion for each
proposed program_ ,under the Scenario 3 - Other Service Innovations.
CMR:256:08 Page 4 of 8
Projected EstimatedService !~movaion Highest Rate
impact Tonnage Diversion
C&D discount coupons for self haulers 0%N/A
Recycle Bank for Residential Recycling .6 %828Customers
Multi-family and Commercial Solid Waste
Processing 9 %15,828
Single Family Solid Waste Processing 4.42 %6,750
Wet/Dry Collection N/A N/A
Anaerobic Digestion of Commercial Food
Waste N/A N/A
Stmff is recommending pursuing C&D discount coupons for se!f haulers because it has ~o rate
impact, it will provide an incentive to Palo Ako self haulers to recycle their C&D material, and it
will provide additional potential diversion, currently unquantifiable, for the Cig~.
Recommendations for other service innovations not to pursue at this time
!) RecycieBank for Residential Recycling. The proposed RecycleBank program is designed to
provide residential customers with incentive coupons in appreciation for increasing the
arnomats of recycle materials set out at the curbside. This program was designed and has
been prover_ to be effective for setting up new residentia! recycling programs within a
commtmity, it requires quantifying amounts of materials being recovered from each
residentia! customer. Staff does not recommend implementing this new program for the City
because it would realize m_inimal change for the investment since the residential program is
already established. The program would also requires a burdensome accounting system and
does not specifically encourage or promote the City’s Zero Waste goal to reduce waste.
2)The Combination of Multi-famil2~ Commercia! and Residential Solid Waste Processing.
Both the multi-family, commercial and residential solid waste processing proposals operate
through a material recovery facility similar to the SMART Station where recyclable materials
are pulled out of the solid waste stream. The proposed processing system is iv_ its initial
planning stage and it conflicts ~Mth the City’s partnership in the SMART Station.
3)Wet/Dry Collection. The wet and dry collection proposal is not recommended for further
evaluation since it is a completely different collection system than what is used in Palo Alto
currently and does not appear to promote waste reduction or recycling.
4)Anaerobic Digestion of Commercial Food Waste. The anaerobic digestion of commercial
food waste is also not recommended for further evaluation at this time since it is a new
technology currently in the conceptual stage that is costly and currently unproven.
CMR:256:08 Page 5 of 8
Proiected Rate impact to Customers
As shown in the table below, the proposed rate increase for basetine services in rate period FY
2009-10 represents an overall increase in the average refuse monthly service of approximately
$1.70 per month for residential customers and an approximate increase of $14.74 for the average
co_rrmaercial customer with a 2 cubic yard collection service.
Average (32-ga!!on)
Refuse Residential
Service
Average Refuse
(2 cubic yards)
Commercia! Service
Projected Rate Impact to Customers in FY 2009-!0
RFP Scenario 1 - Baseline Services
Refuse Monthly
Utility Bill as of
July 1, 2008
$26.58
$230.37
Projected
Highest Rate
Impact
6.4%
6.4%
$
Difference
$1.70
$!4.74
FY 2009-10
Estimated Monthly
Refuse Rate
$28.28
$245.!!
Staff surveyed surrounding jurisdictions to compare Palo Alto’s proposed single-family rates
with other communities’ rates. Although Palo Alto’s projected rate is at the high-end of the
spectrum, Palo _Alto cm-rently provides more services through the Refuse Fund than other
jurisdictions which makes it difficult to equally compare the service levels. Palo Alto’s current
premium, services include: backyard garbage collection; weekly s~eet sweeping; montbAy
hazardous waste collection; extensive recycling collection and waste diversion services; and
landfil! and composting operations.
Jurisdiction
Cupertino
Los Altos Hills
San Jose
Los Altos
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Mountain View
Average rate
Single Family Rates
From Surroun iding Jurisdictions
FY 2007-08
for one 32-gailon
can refuse service
Actual
$29.40
$28.03
$25.80
$24.16
$24.14
$23.12
$16.25
$15.75
$23.33
FY 2008-09
for one 32-gallon can refuse
service
$30.57
$28.03
$26.95
$26.58
$28.03
$25.31(pr~ected)
$17.05
$16.40
$24.72
FY 2009- !0
for one 32-gal!on
can refuse service
Projected for
Baseline Services
$28.28
The rate impact based on a total packm.ge of baseline services in addition to all of the Zero Waste
programs is projected to be approximately 21.9 percent above FY 2008-09 rates. The table
below shows the projected tota! rate impact to the average residential and commercial customers
in the first year of the new contract, FY 2009-10.
CMR:256:08 Page 6 of 8
Projected Rate 5-~n_pact to C-astomers in FY 2009-!0
- Baseline Services p!us ALL R_FP Scenm~o 2 - Zero Waste Se!wices
Average (32-ga!lon)
ReNse Residential
Service
Average Refuse
(2 cubic yards)
Co*_:~_merciai Se~Tice
Re%se Montbfly
Utility ~.1~1 as of
Juiy i, 2008
$ 26.58
$230.37
Highest
Rate Lrnpact
2!.9 %
21.9 %
$
Dif-ference
$50.45
FY 2009-10
Monthly
ReNse Rate
$ 32.40
$280.82
The rate impact based o~ a package of ba.seii~e semzices a~_d staff’_,~s recommended Zero Waste
programs is projected to be appro>d~mate!y t7.2 percent above F~z- 2008-09 rates (6.4% for
baseiine services pius 10.8% of recorm-ne:aded Zero Waste services). ~e tabie beiow shows
projected rate impacts of staffs recommendation to ~e average residentia! a~_d coro_merciai
customers in the ~,_rst year of the new contract, FY 2009-10.
Projected Rate impact to Customers in FV 2009-I0
Scenario i - Baseline Services plus Staff Recorm>~ended
Average (32-galion)
Refuse Residentia!
Service
Average Re~ase
(2 cubic yards)
Commercial Service
RFP Scenario 2 - Zero Waste Semdces
ReNse Montb_!y
Utility Bi!! as of
Juty !, 2008
$ 26.58
$230.37
Highest
_Rate ~qapact
17.2 %
i7.2 %
$
Difference
$ 4.57
$39.62
FY 2009- I0
Monthly
Kemse Rate
$ 3!.!5
$269.99
SMART Station and Kirby Canyon Landfill Effects
The Zero Waste Operational Plan projects that if al! the zero waste services are implemented per
the plan in this new agreement, 23,580 tons of less waste -would be de!ivered to the SMART
Station. This could create a 7% annua! rate savings or approximately $1,925,000 in armual
savings to t_he City, even after paying the pena!ff for not meeting the "put or pay requirement" at
Kirby Canyon Landfill.
Next Ste_px
Staff plans to return to Co-mnci! in July 2008 to report on the evaluation and ranking of the two
proposals and to request a reco_m_mendation on the company with whom staff is to negotiate a
final agreement. In September 2008, stax~f will return to Counci! with a recommendation for
approva! and executio_n_ of the fin!l Agreement. New services are scheduled to begin July 1,
2009.
CIv~:256:08 Page 7 of 8
RESOURCE IMPACT
Resource impacts will be further evaluated and presented in July 2008 after Council direction on
selection of future programs.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
These recommendations are consistent with existing policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In February 2008, the City retained HDR to perform an environmental assessment in connection
with the final award of the new contract. HDR is in the process of completing the environmental
assessment which will be presented to the.Council for approval in September 2008 along with
the final agreement.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachmem A: CMR:459:07
Copies of the attachment to this C~v!_-9~:256:08 may be viewed at the Public Works Department
counter located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 6t~ Floor, Palo Alto or by contacting Paula Borges-
Fujimoto at 650-496-5914.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Executive Assistant
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
KELLY
Deputy City Managers
EMSL!E
/
CMR:256:08 Page 8 of 8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENT A
C ty Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
9
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DECEMBER 17, 2007 CNIR:459:07
APPROVAL OF THE SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND REVIEW
OF EVALUATION PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE NEW SOLID WASTE AND
RECYCLING COLLECTION AND PROCESSING SERVICES
AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the summary scope of services (Attachment A) and
provide feedback on the evaluation process proposed for the upcoming Request for Proposals
(ILFP) for the new solid waste and recycling collection and processing services agreement.
BACKGROUND
The current agreement with the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) to collect and transport
solid waste within the City of Palo Alto is in effect until June 30, 2009. City staff, including a
cross-departmental committee and consultants, have been working on the process to solicit
proposers for a new solid waste and recycling agreement. The procurement process is expected
to begin in February 2008, with August 2008 as the projected date for awarding a new contract,
and new services beginning July 1, 2009. The key milestones and dates are included in the
project timeline (Attachment B).
At the Council study session on October 1, 2007, staff provided an overview of the upcoming
procurement process for the new solid waste and recycling contract; highlighted key policy
issues relating to the new contract, and presented the challenges, options and preliminary
approaches to the key RFP components.
On October 29, 2007, Council voted to approve staff’s twelve preliminary recommendations
regarding key issues in the development of the RFP for the new solid waste and recycling
collection and processing services. The recommendations focused on three major components of
the upcoming RFP: services, facilities, and certain agreement terms. A comprehensive list of the
recommendations and related information can be found in CMR:373:07 (Attachment C).
DISCUSSION
This report focuses on the summary scope of services for the new agreement and the evaluation
process for proposals received. It also provides an update on employee relations for the new
agreement.
CMR:459:07 Page 1 of 5
Scope of Services
Pursuant to Council’s earlier direction, the RFP will solicit proposals for baseline services as
well as zero waste, and other innovative programs. The goal of the broad scope is to collect
detailed technical and cost information so that the Council can perform a thorough cost benefit
analysis of all proposed programs. Below is a summary of the three general service levels which
will be included in the RFP scope of services. Additional details on these three service levels are
included in the summary scope of services (Attachment A).
Baseline services - These for the most part consist of the basic collection, disposal and
recycling services currently being provided by PASCO. There are some modifications of
the current services such as: the standard location for collection of containers will be
curbside, although residential backyard/side yard pickup will be offered at an additional
charge to customers; collection service on private streets or alleys may be offered at an
additional fee depending on the proposal bid costs received through the RFP;
additionally, the responsibility of operating a recycling center has been removed from the
baseline services until further direction from Council.
Zero waste services - Includes the proposer’s approach to the six specific additional
services that are intended to implement elements of the City’s Zero Waste Operational
Plan. These include:
1.Expanding organics materials;
2.Expanding single stream materials;
3.Expanding bulky item collection for reuse and recycling;
4.Enhancing recycling through mandatory participation;
5.Increasing construction and demolition (C&D) diversion; and
6.Enhancing commercial recycling.
The cost of these six services will be presented separately in the cost proposals so the
Council has the necessary information with which to choose al!, some, or none of these
services.
Other service innovations - This will include the proposer’s approach to maximizing the
diversion of materials from landfill disposal in furtherance of the City’s Zero Waste
Policy and Zero Waste Operational Plan.
Evaluation Process
The selected proposer will be chosen based on the outcome of an evaluation. The evaluation and
scoring will be performed by an evaluation committee and overseen by the steering and advisory
committee. The evaluation committee will be responsible for making a professional
recommendation to Council who will ultimately select the successfi~ proposer. Additional
information regarding the evaluation structure can be found in Attachment D.
Staff has identified two viable approaches that can be used for the evaluation process. Staff
recommends the following six step process for evaluating the proposals and selecting a
contractor.
CMR:459:07 Page 2 of 5
Initial evaluation: Upon receipt, the proposals will be evaluated for: compliance with the
procedures described in the RFP; completeness; and acceptability (achievement of
minimum requirements for comparable experience, financial ability, and agreement with
the proposed terms of the draft agreement). Those proposals that fail to pass the initial
evaluation will not be considered for further review.
Cost proposal evaluation: The cost proposals for each service level ("Baseline", "Zero
Waste" and "Other Service Innovations") of those proposals that pass the initial
evaluation wil! be reviewed. Clarifications and answers to any questions will be obtained
from the proposers.
o Council selects service level: Staff will report to Council in May 2008 the ranges of
program costs and the estimated diversion results without identifying the proposing
companies for each of the service levels. Based on this information, Council will select
the service level that it desires. (Note that this step is optional depending on number of
proposals, cost of new programs and price variance.)
Ranking of proposals: The evaluation committee will complete the evaluation and
ranking of the proposals based on the weighting of the following criteria in addition to
any input (if applicable) regarding service levels discussed in Step 3 above:
Administrative. Financial and Contractual (maximum 35 points). The following
types of items will be considered:
a.Solid waste and diversion experience of firm and key staff, municipal
agency references and regulatory record.
b. Financial ability to perform its obligations under the agreement including
securing facilities and equipment.
c. The number and significance of exceptions to the draft agreement.
Technical and Environmental (maximum 45 points). The following types of
items will be considered:
Reasonableness of transition and operational plan; effectiveness of
collection and processing services and facilities (including marketing of
materials); effectiveness of public outreach, education and customer
services programs.
No Steps to minimize adverse environmental impact (including air and traffic)
of operations, vehicles and facilities (including miles traveled and
emissions); and, beneficial impacts (diversion and highest and best use of
materials).
Cost (maximum 20 points). The following types of items will be considered:
a. Reasonableness and predictability of furore costs.
b. Relative competitiveness of costs.
ClVIR:459:07 Page 3 of 5
o Contractor selection: In June 2008, staff will report to Council the ranking of the
proposals and provide a recommendation on the company with whom staff is to negotiate
a final agreement. At this time Council can provide direction, as applicable, for the
negotiations (e.g., changes, elimination or additions to proposed programs and services
and!or directions regarding costs).
Contract Approval and Execution: Staff will return to Council in August 2008,
recommending approval and execution of the final agreement. An environmental
assessment of any new operational aspects of the proposed agreement will be conducted
prior to Council’s final action.
An alternative approach to staff’s recommendation on the evaluation process is to eliminate
step 3 and present Council at one time information on the qualification, technical and cost
proposals for all proposers and each service level. This alternative approach would eliminate
Council’s early input on the cost aspects of the zero waste programs and other service
innovations. If there are multiple proposers with diverging costs staff believes this
intermediate step would be helpful to the overall selection process and would allow Council
to better consider the cost benefit of the new programs. Therefore, if there are several
proposers or if there is significant price divergence for the zero waste and other innovative
programs, staff recommends the multi-stage step evaluation process for the following
reasons:
Maximize compliance with the RFP process;
Minimize exceptions to the draft agreement;
Facilitate Council’s decision on the service level it wants, separate from the company
who will provide the service, and avoid the pressure to select the proposer with the
lowest cost proposal;
Facilitate Council’s selection of the best qualified contractor (rather than lowest cost);
and
Create the timely oppommity for the Council to direct staff and the contractor as to
any modification of the proposed services to best meet the needs of the City, its
residents and businesses.
~mp!9¥ee Relations Issues
One of the key issues raised at the October 29, 2007 public meeting was the retention of current
PASCO employees and the incorporation of employee relations language into the RFP. Pursuant
to Council’s direction, the RFP will require the proposers to offer employment to displaced
PASCO employees. As part of that effort, the new contractor will be required to compensate its
employees in accordance with the wages and benefits then in effect at the current contractor. In
addition, the RFP requires the proposers to provide detailed information regarding existing
human resources programs, employee grievance procedures and procedures for dealing with
employee absenteeism. A more detailed list of these RFP requirements relating to personnel and
employee relations is contained in Attachment A-.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Resource impacts will be evaluated as part of the RFP process.
CMR:459:07 Page 4 of 5
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
These recommendations are consistent with existing pohcies and previous Counci! direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. T]ae
City w:fll perform an environmenta! assessment in connection with the fial award of the new
contract.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Summary Scope of Services
Attachment B:Project Timeline
Attachment C:CMR:373:07
Attachment D:Evaluation Structure
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
fistant
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
~.,-~.,,,,~ ~ .. R___.V
EMILY ~SON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:459:07 Page 5 of 5
Attachment A
Draft RFP
Summary Scope of Services
The City is requesting proposals to provide residential single-family, residential multi-
family, and commercial solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials services
and other services commencing July 1, 2009 for a base term of 8 years and a maximum
term of 12 years as described in the Agreement (Attachment 4). The scope of services is
summarized in this section.
Three Scenarios
The City is seeking proposals for three different scenarios. Each scenario is
the list below and then described in more detail.
identified in
Scenario 1 : Baseline Services - these include services being provided by the current
contractor.
Scenario 2: Zero Waste Services -this scenario includes the six specific additional
services (described below) that are intended to implement elements of the City’s Zero
Waste Operational Plan.
Scenario 3: Other Service Innovations - these are to include the proposer’s approach
to maximizing the diversion of materials from landfill disposal in furtherance of the
City’s Zero Waste Policy and Zero Waste Operational Plan
Scenario 1: Baseline Services
The contractor shall collect from residential single-family, residential multi-family, and
commercial customers solid waste, recyclable materials, and yard trimmings placed in
contractor provided containers. The standard location for collection of containers from
residential single family customers shall be curbside, although such customers may
receive sideyard/backyard service at an additional fee. Similarly, customers requesting
service on private streets and alleys, may pay an additional fee depending on the proposal
bid costs received through the RFP. The contractor shall deliver all the solid waste loads
to the SMART Station but the .City reserves the option to redirect the loads when
appropriate to the City landfill located at 2380 Embarcadero Road. The City’s landfill is
currently projected to close in January 2011. The contractor shall collect yard trimmings
and transport them, to the City’s composting facility at the City landfill, until that
operation ceases. Thereafter the yard trimmings can be delivered to the SMART Station
unless the City directs that the material processing would stay local. In addition, the
contractor shall collect and transport recyclable materials to a contractor proposed and
City approved processing site.
In addition to the collection and transportation of solid waste, single stream recyclable
materials and yard trimmings from residential single-family, multi-family and
commercial accounts, the contractor shall provide the following services:
Backyard/side yard collection services for recycling, solid waste and yard trimmings
for individuals with physical limitations.
Collection of solid waste using debris boxes (7, 15, 20, 30 and 40 cubic yard).
Page 1 of 6
Attachment A
Draft RFP
Summary Scope of Services
Collection of construction and demolition debris using debris boxes (7, 15, 20, 30 and
40 cubic yard) and transportation of these materials to an appropriate processing
facility. For purposes of this RFP, an appropriate processing facility is one which is
capable of recovering a minimum of 70% of the materials for reuse and/or recycling.
Collection of single stream recycling materials twice per month from different
locations at 26 City parks.
Collection of recyclables once per week from public receptacles at City Hall and four
other downtown locations.
Collection of solid waste from approximately 208 public receptacle locations and 17
bus stop locations.
Collection and recycling of pallets from commercial businesses.
Collection and marketing for reuse or recycling of polystyrene at City Hall.
Collection of single stream recycling to all occupied City buildings.
Collection of single stream recyclables in one to four cubic yard bins and in carts for
multi-family and commercial customers.
Cleaning of public receptacle containers located in the downtown business district
(approximately 50) twice per month.
Planning, delivery, transportation, collection and processing of recycling, solid waste
and organic service at all special events (approximately 16 annually) in the City using
contractor provided containers.
A 30. cubic yard debris box for garbage and a 4 cubic yard bin for cardboard
collection at the City’s Household Hazardous Waste events (approximately !2
annually).
Performance of waste audits of not less than twelve commercial businesses annually.
On-call Recycling Cleanout Service with not less than two 2-cubic yard bins on a
first-come first-serve basis for businesses and schools.
One change out of cart sizes per year for no additional charge.
Continue shared, slotted and locked bins for recycling in the commercial sector
(approximately 15 locations)
Purchase and distribute "recycling buddies" for multi-family customers.
Review construction and remodel blueprint plans for adequate storage of solid waste
containers and for collection vehicle access (approximately 50 annually).
Clean-up Day - Curbside collection of excess debris, bulky items and household
items for single family homes and multi-family complexes with four units or less.
Contractor shall provide one appointment (on the regular refuse collection day) per
calendar year.
In addition to the direct services described above, the contractor shall provide the
following additional customer service, reporting and contract management activities:
local business office.
Page 2 of 6
Attachment A
Draft RFP
Summary Scope of Services
Monthly, quarterly, and annual reporting to the City, describing operations and
providing service information in a format approved by the City.
Scenario 2: Zero Waste Services
In support of its "Zero Waste Policy", on September 17, 2007, the City Councit adopted
its Zero Waste Operational Plan (ZWOP). The ZWOP included the folJowing six
specific programs, and proposals for these services are being requested:
2.1 Expanding Organics Materials
Commencing July 1, 2009, the contractor shall collect organics (food scraps,
compostable paper, untreated wood, untreated wallboard and other compostables)
placed in both carts and bins from commercial customers (includes multi-family).
The contractor may propose its or a subcontractor’s processing site which shall be
subject to City approval.
Commencing July 1, 2010, the contractor shall collect organics (food scraps,
compostable paper, untreated wood, untreated wallboard and other compostables)
placed in carts from residential customers. The contractor may propose its or a
subcontractor’s processing site which shall be subject to City approval.
2.2 Expanding ,,,~ngle Stream Materials
Commencing July 1, 2009, the contractor sha!l:
Add textiles and hardcover books to the materials included for single
stream collection.
Add milk and juice containers (gabled tops) to the materials included for
single stream collection.
2.3 Expanding Bulky, Item Collection for Reuse and Recvclin~
Commencing July 1, 2009, the contractor shall expand the bulky item reuse
recycling program by collecting from customers once annually (on an on-call
basis) separated materials for reuse or recycling from customers.
2.4 Enhancing Recycling Through Mandatory Participation
To reach the City’s Zero waste goals the City’s Zero Waste Operational plan
recommended to require residents, commercial and multi-family customers to
participate in the recycling and composting collection programs. The City is
asking the contractor to implement this mandatory participation program starting
in July 1, 2009 which requires customers to place recyclables and compostable
materials in_ the_ appropriate collection containers and to ban these materials from
disposal. Program elements of the mandatory participation program include:
Page 3 of 6
Attachment A
Draft RFP
Summary Scope of Services
In the first year, commencing July 1, 2009, the contractor shall notify
customers of the requirements;
In the second year, commencing July 1, 2010, the contractor shall provide
customers with a warning for failure to comply;
In the third year, commencing July 1, 20I 1, the contractor shall penalize
customers for non-compliance.
The contractor shall submit a plan and cost to implement this program starting
With suggested types of materials, planned education tools to be used for first
year, warning system plan for the second year and then a plan for penalizing the
violators after the third year.
2.5 Increasing C&D Diversion
Commencing July 1, 2009, collect and transport all roll-off boxes (including those
generated fi’om City crews), with less than 30% contamination, in construction
and demolition debris to a proposer-selected and City-approved processing
facility(ies).
2.6 Enhancing Commercial Recycling
Commencing July 1, 2009, provide public education and roll-out single stream
recycling services to all commercial customers. Corm-nercial customers wil! be
allowed to opt out of the program if they fill out an appropriate City approved
form prior to delivery of containers.
Improve recycling in public areas (grocery stores, convenience stores,
hospitals and schools)
Scenario 3: Other Service Innovations
The City of Palo Alto reached a 63 .percent diversion rate in 2005. The ZWOP goals are
73 % diversion by 2011 and to strive for zero waste by eliminating materials sent to the
landfills by 2021. The City is seeking proposals that include additional services that the
proposer believes would increase the City’s diversion levels (above 63% between 2009-
2011 and above 73% alter 2011) for contractor-controlled streams of materials. These
may include, but are not be limited to, proposed policies/ordinances for adoption by the
Council, alternative business terms, additional or alternative programs, services and/or
facilities.
Page 4 of 6
Attachment A
Draft RFP
Summary Scope of Services
Other Scope Strategies
Processing Proposals
Proposers shall include in their proposal a description of their arrangements for the single
stream recyclable processing, expanded organics program processing, and construction
and demolition debris processing. The City prefers one agreement for all services.
However, the Cit3’ will consider proposals with separate contracts and terms for
processing facilities.
Disposal Services
Contractor shall be responsible for delivering solid waste to landfills and/or transfer
stations as directed by the City. It ~411 be the City’s responsibility to identify and secure
disposal capacity. At the commencement of the Agreement, the contractor shall deliver
the waste materials to the SMART Station in Surmyvale unless redirected by the City
which will then be to the City landfill at 2380 Embarcadero Road.
Environmental impact
The City wishes to minimize the environmental impacts of the collection fleet including
efficient routing of vehicles, minimizing hauling distances, reducing traffic congestion
and minimizing noise. As one element of mitigating adverse environmental impacts,
proposers are directed to consider the use of clean alternative fuel vehicles and provide
separate costs from proposers for use of such vehicles.
Corporation Yard and Recycling Facility
The City requires all proposers to own, lease, or have an option to purchase or lease the
property to be used for staging equipment and personnel, equipment maintenance, and
recyclable materials processing. A portion (approximately one (1) acre) of PASCO’s
operational yard located at 2000 Geng Road may be available to rent to a furore
contractor for discrete operations (e.g., storage of containers).
Other Conditions
Offer of Employment
The City’s new contractor shall offer employment to displaced workers currently
employed by the City’s current contractor at equivalent wages and benefits to the extent
such displaced workers are needed to perform the services described in attached
Agreement. As part of that effort, the new contractor will be required to compensate its
employees in accordance with the wages and benefits then in effect at the current
contractor. However, the new hauler is not required to: (a) displace any of its current
employees, (b) modify its current job performance requirements or employee selection
Page 5 of 6
Attachment A
Draft RFP
Summary Scope of Services
standards, or (c) offer employment to more of the displaced workers than are needed to
perform the services required under Agreement.
Effective Human Resources Management
The City has determined that the high quality service and customer satisfaction that it
wishes to maintain and continue to improve under the proposed contract is significantly
dependent upon the contractor’s effective human resources management. The City
frequently receives complimentary comments from its residents concerning the
performance of the current workforce with respect to both its perceived efficiency and
customer-friendly demeanor.
Each proposer should include in its proposal a detailed description of its human resource
philosophy and the programs and policies that it plans to implement to maintain and
improve the positive working environment and effective workforce performance that now
prevails. The proposer should include a description of any programs or policies that it
has implemented in the past, what has worked, what has not, and what it has learned from
the latter. Each proposal should describe its proposed grievance policy or procedure and
what experience it has had with it or similar policies in the past. Each proposal should
also describe any prior experience it has had with absenteeism and how it has dealt with
such issues in the past..
Page 6 of 6
A%%ACHMENTB
Ne~v Solid Waste & Recycling Services Contract
Project Timeline
Key ]Items
Release RFP
Proposals due
Evaluation and interviews of proposers
CEQA - project level environmental review
Dat_.___~e
February 2008
April 2008
April - June 2008
Feb. - August 2008
Council study session (RFP cost results - proposed ranges of programs ) May 2008*
Council meeting (ranking of proposals and direction for negotiations)
Negotiate and finalize contract
Council meeting to award contract
New services begin
June 2008*
June - July 2008
August 2008*
July 2009
* Opportunities for Council involvement and/or direction
CMR:Attachment A Page 1 of 1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUCRE. c’r.:
ATTACHMENT C
City of Pa!o Alto
City Manager,s Report
HONORABLE Crier COUNCIL 1 2
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
OCTOBER 29, 201)7 C1VIR:373:07
APPROVAL OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TtlE
DEVELOPMENT OF TIlE REQUF_NT FOR PROPOSALS FOR TllE NEW
SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION AND PROCESSING
SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the twelve recommendations in the developmem of the
Request for Proposals (RFP) for the new solid waste and recycling collection and processing
services.
BACKGROUND
The Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) has been collecting and transporting solid waste
within the City of Palo Alto since 1951 and has been collecting and processing recyclabie
materials since ! 978. PASCO initially operated under an "evergreen" contract that was renewed
every year. In November ! 998, PASCO was formally acquired by USA Waste of California (a
Waste Management Company), and in Augt~ 1999, Council approved a new agreement for
PASCO starting on September 1, 1999 for a tema of up to ten years. The agreement is in effect
until June 30, 2009.
In 2006, the Director of Public Works created a cross-departmental committee to oversee the
procurement process for a new solid waste and recycling services agreement. The committee
includes slaff from the City Manager’s Office, Administrative Services, Planning, Public Works,
and Utilities Departments, and the City Manager’s Office. The City Attorney’s Office and the
City Auditor are advisors to the committee.
In March 2007, Council approved a contract with HF&H Consultants (HF&IT), a consulting firm
.specializing in solid waste and recycling procurement processes. HF&H’s scope of work
includes:
Evaluate and develop recommendations on the type of agxeement, compensation
methodology and term best suited for the City of Palo Alto.
Incorporate the goals of the Zero Waste Operational Plan into the RFP.
Develop drafts and final copies of the RFP package and supporting documentation for the
draft agreement and establish evaluation criteria.
Assist in the evaluation of proposals, costs, and interview process.
CMR:373:07 Page 1 of 7
The procurement process is expected to beghn in January 2008, with July 2008 as the projected
date for awarding a new contract, with services beginning July 1, 2009. This solicitation and
award timeline has been developed to allow adequate time to implement a new contract and for
consideration of project requirements such as a project-level environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The key milestones and dates are included in
the project timeline (Attachment A).
Adding to the complexity of the procurement timeline and process are the Zero Waste
Operational Plan, the closure of the City landfill, and the City’s contractual commitments with
the Sum’~yvale Materials Recovery and Transfer (SMART) Station and the Kirby Canyon
Landfill.
Zero Waste O_Derational Plan
in September 2007, City Council approved a tiered approach for the continuing review, approval,
and implementation of the Zero Waste Operational Plan. This included evaluating as part of the
upcom.ing waste haul~g RFP process the addition of five prograrns. ,The five programs include:
Organics - divert food scraps, compostables, untreated wood and other compostables for all
sectors of the community.
Single-stream materials - expand the type of materials cm-s-ently being accepted.
Bulky item collection - enhance the existing bulky item reuse and recycling program.
Construction and demolition materials (C&D) diversion - divert al! C&D debris boxes to a
local C&D debris processor.
Commercial recycling - provide recycling se~ice to a!l corr~-nercial customers.
City Landfill
The City’s !andfil! is est~,ated to reaclq fill capacity in 2011.
the State is anticipated in 2013.
The fmal closure approval ~om
SMART Station
The City is in partnership with the Cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale for the operation of
the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer (SMART) Station. The SMART Station disposes
of waste at the Kirby Canyon landfill. The City Memorandum of Understanding with Sunnyvale
and Mountain View to use the SMART Station will terminate on October 15, 2021.
Kirby Cam, on Landfill
Palo Alto’s agreement with Waste Management Inc. to use Kirby Canyon landfill provides for
delivery of specific annual tonnages of solid waste with per-ton put-or-pay payments to be made
to Waste Management for each ton that falls short of the annual tonnage commitment. This
commitment to the Kirby Canyon Landfill will remain in effect until 2021.
At the Council Study Session on October 1, 2007, staff provided an overview of the upcoming
procurement process for the new solid waste hauling and recycling contract; highlighted key
policy issues relating to the new contract, and presented the challenges, options and preliminary
approach to the key RFP components related to services, facilities and the agreement.
CMR:373:07 Page 2 of 7
1N~SCUSS~.ON
This report focuses on three major components of the upcoming RFP for the new solid waste and
recycling service: services, facilities and certain agreement terms. A more comprehensive list of
options organized by major issue, together with their related advantages and disadvantages can.
be found in Attachment B.
Staff will incorporate Counci! direction on these recommendations into the draft RFP, which is
scheduled for Council review on December 17, 2007. At the review on December 17th, st~f
will also propose a prioritizatio~weighting structure to guide the evaluation of responses.
Service Components:
Recommendation #):in order to Mlow Counci! to evaluate cost v, rith the zero waste
operational plan recommendations, stPdctm-e the RFP to include
bfiseline services with itemized zero waste services and other service
innovations as proposal options.
The RFP will solicit separate pricing for baseline services, zero waste services, and innovation.
The baseline services represent the current service levels for garbage, recycling, composting and
C&D debris. The zero waste services include the five additional or expanded services for
organics, single stream materials, reuse and recycling bulky item collection, C&D recycling, and
commercial recycling. The irmovation section of the service package would allow proposers to
present other services not required in the RFP which they believe could advance the City’s
diversion goals.
The recommendation requires that the cost for individual zero waste services be itemized and
separated from baseline services, which will provide Counci! with the ability to choose services
according to both cost and diversion impact.
Recommendation #2:To minimize future garbage collection cost, make curbside garbage
collection the standard, with an option for backyard/side yard
collection with additional fee.
Currently, the standard garbage collection for the City of Palo Alto is backyard!side yard,
resulting in PASCO manually collecting the material using two workers on each route.
Residents provide their own 32-gallon garbage can. The standard collection for recycling and
yard trimmings is curbside collection in carts. The City is unique in offering the backyard/side
yard as a standard service for garbage and is one of the last cities in California to offer this high
level of service. In 2005, the City began offering carts for curbside garbage collection. The
optional curbside garbage cart became popular and demand for it continues to increase. It is
estimated that 33 percent of residential customers are currently using a City-provided garbage
cart instead of a can. In addition, there are residents using a can for theix garbage and taking it to
the curb for collection. As a result, it is estimated that approximately 45 percent of residents are
currently taking their garbage cart or can to the curb.
Eliminating backyard!side yard collection as the standard would result in cost savings, while still
giving residents the ability to obtain this service at an additional charge. The City will continue
CMR:373:07 Page 3 of 7
to offer a backyard/side yard collection service for those residents that are medically tunable to
take their carts to the curb and for those residents who elect to pay for the additional service.
The intent of both this recommendation and recommendation #3 is to create a standardized
location and method for collection services, which would be required to be located at the
curbside on public streets to the greatest extent feasible. That will enable the maximum
utilization of automated or semi-automated collection equipment with a resultant savings in labor
costs and consequential rate mAnirnization.
Recommendation #3:To minimize #oture collection cost on private streets and alleys,
require that the base service be defined as collecting all solid waste
iterns on public street frontages (curbside), and that proposers submit a
separate bid price to service homes on private streets or alleys.
Collection on private streets and alleyways is an issue in most communities, it accounts for less
than 10 percent of Palo Alto customers. There are currently 16 locations where residential
garbage is picked up from k.he alleyway by a standard collection vehicle instead of backyard/side
yard or curbside service while the recyclables and green waste are picked up at curbside.
PASCO also provides non-standard collection services to seven private streets or driveways by
sending a smaller vehicle to collect the materials. It is projected that there are an additional six
development sites curremly under construction or going through a permit process that may not be
accessible to a standard collection vehicle.
Currently, PASCO can only charge customers rates that are approved by Council through the
rate schedules. The current rate for servicing private streets is typically an additional surcharge
rate of $845.76 amaually. .These rates are inclusive of costs for driver, equipment, fuel, and
depreciation. _The recommendation would provide a more accurate cost for the non-standard
collection services and would create a reasonable rate for customers with the private streets.
This cost could be avoided by having the resident take bo~ refuse and recyclables to the street
frontage (curbside).
Recommendation #4.To minimize labor issues relating to retention of existing PASCO
employees and avoidance of wage disputes, encourage new service
provider to retain qualified, productive existing PASCO employees
and to pay wages at levels equivalent to existing wages.
One of the labor issues for the new agreement will be the retention of existing PASCO
employees who have a long work history in the City. Adding to the complexity is that PASCO is
currently a non-union operation but pays union equivalent wages. To promote worker equity
issues and to ensure that non-unionized organizations will not be given an unintended preference
in the proposal process, staff recommends structuring the RFP to provide a preference for
retention of PASCO workers and payment of union equivalent wages.
CMR:373:07 Page 4 of 7
Key Faciliw Components:
Recommendation #5."Require service provider to find operation ym-d within the region.
Allow service provider to utilize a portion of the Geng Road site as a
staging area.
It is estimated that the service provider will need between 2.5 and 3 acres of space for its
operations, consisting of facilities for its collection vehicles, equipment repair, a customer
service office, container storage, maintenance operations, and mn employee operations yard.
WNIe there are certain economies to co-locating these operations, they also can be located at
different sites and do not all need to be located in Palo Alto. PASCO’s operational yard is
cm-rently !ocated at 2000 Geng Road and it is appro~-nate!y 1.9 acres, it appears that
approximately one acre of the current site is considered parkland, and may have use restrictions
following ten-nination of the PASCO contract and/or cessation of the landfill. A portion of the
Geng Road site currently utilized by PASCO may be available to rent to a future provider for
discrete operations. Utilizing a portion of the Geng Road site as a staging area would allow for
some operations to be local thus facilitating quicker resolution of customer service issues. Since
available property -in the area is limited, identifying a portion of the Geng Road site for
operational use wil! reduce the complexity for proposers. Providing a !ocal staging area could
reduce expenses for transportation.
Recommendation #d.Utilize the existing City composting operation for yard trimmings as
long as feasible (estimated to be 2011). The expanded organics
program for the commercial sector (including food waste) will be
processed at a regional facility stm--ting in July 2009 with the new
agreement.
The recormnaendation reflec~ a desire to continue to utilize the City’s compost operation to the
fullest. It implements a curbside organics program in 2009 for the commercial sector, which is
two years earlier than proposed in the Zero Waste Operationa! Plan. The commercial sector has
the potential to divert over 12,000 tons per year of expanded organic materials (food waste,
compostable paper & untreated wood).
Recommendation #7:Direct furore service providers to collect and process single stream
materials, rather than allowing proposers to bid other methods.
The recommendation builds on the success of the current single stream recycling service that is
highly accepted and utilized by the community.
Recommendation #8:Require proposer to utilize C&D processors other than the SMART
Station, which at a minimum recover 70% of the materials for reuse
and/or recycling.
Currently, the SMART Station recovers only 25% of materials for reuse and recycling. The
recommendation is consistent with the Zero Waste Operational Plan recommendations and the
City’s C&D ordinance requirements. It also would lead to an estimated increased diversion of
5,000 tons per year.
CMR:373:07 Page 5 of 7
Key Agreement Components:
Recommendatiol~ #9: Strive to create one contract for both collection
Reserve option for separate processing contracts.
and processing.
Currently, the City has one contract for existing services minimizing the number of contracts for
the City to administer. The recommendation increases flexibility in how processing facilities
could be utilized.
Recommendaiion #10:Continue with existing practice of exclusive agreement for solid waste
and residential recyclables.
~e e-,dsting contract with PASCO is an exclusive agreement for solid waste and residential
recyclables and non exclusive for commercial recyclables. The recommendation allows the City
the greatest possible level of control over the waste stream. !t wil! allow for increased
accountability since the waste stream can be more closely monitored and reporting will be more
comprehensive. The additional advantages to this recommendation are that the level of
exclusivity may generate more interest and competition during the proposal process, which, with
a cooperative and motivated contractor, these provisions could be more helpful in achieving Zero
Waste goals. The ser¥ice quality and impact on the community can be more closely regulated to
increase accouantabitity.
Recommendation #7 7:Create a 12-year maximum term for the collection and hauling
agreement such as an 8-year base term with the potential of up to fore-
1-year extensions, to be granted either singularly or cumulatively
depending on circumstances at the time.
The 12 year maximum term will have an end date of 2021, to coincide with SMART Station and
Kirby Canyon Landfill agreements. This could lead to expanded opportunities for improved
services and reduced costs in the next contractor selection process. The relatively short initial
term may keep the contractor focused on its performance in order to obtain the extension, while
enhancing the City’s ability to reward a successful contractor with an extension or to replace a
poorly performing contractor.
Recommendation #!2:Negotiate a fixed price compensation agreement with specific annual
index adjustments and fmancial incentives for diversion.
The recommendation results in a compensation methodology that is simple, easy to predict and
inexpensive to administer. It holds the contractor accountable for its key representations to the
City. It is also consistent with City Auditor’s recommendation, on the April 2007 Audit of the
Palo Alto Sanitation Company Contract, to simplify future contract administration.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Resource impacts will be evaluated as part of the RFP process. Staff will remm in the summer
of 2008 to Council, for a study session where staff will present RFP results, evaluation and costs
for these new services.
CMR:373:07 Page 6 of 7
POLICY ];NIPL!CATI!ONS
These recommendations are consistent .with existing policies.
¯ ENVIRONMENTAL REVI~EW
This report is not a project for the pus-poses of the California Environmental Quality Act. The
City ,adll perform an environmental assessment in connection with the final award of the new
contract.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Project Timetine
Attachment B: R_FP Component Options
PREP~a~vED BY:Russell Reiserer, Manager of Solid Waste Programs
Paula Borges, Executive Assistant
DEP.a~RTMENT HE~: .& ~
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of.2ublic Works
EMILY-. HAAKRi S ON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:373:07 Page 7 of 7
Ke~
Council meeting - approve key elements in the RFP
Release RFP
Evaluation and interviews of proposers
CEQA - project level enviromnaental review
Counci! study session (RFP results, evaluation, costs)
Negotiate and finalize contract
Council meeting to award contract
New contract begins
December 2007*
January 2008
April - June 2008
january - June 2008
June 2008*
June - July 2008
July 2008*
July 2009
* Opportunities i%r Council involvement mad/or direction
CMR:373:07 Attachment A Page 1 of 1
o ~c~ o
o
~ 0
0 00 0
o C~
.= ~
o
o
o
d
;:>ca
--.2o
oo
oo
0
Z"
> .~0
oo
o
o
0
o0
0
0
C
c
o
co
o.~_
¯ l~ .I2