Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-078 RESOLUTION NO. 97-78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUlHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITII HILTON, FARNKOPF HOBSON,LLC TO CONDUCT A FEASffilLITY STUDY FOR A MA RECOVERY FACILITY AND TRANSFER STATION, AND PREPARATION OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE C OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf 0 said City an Agreement with Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson, LLC to conduct a feasibili study for a Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, and preparation of a Reques for Proposal Document as specified in Addendum A, a copy of which is attached heret and incorporated herein by ref~rence as fully as though set forth at length. SECTION 2. The authorization to execute the above referenced agreement i rescinded if the parties to the agreement fail to execute it within sixty (60) days of th passage of this resolution. 1111 1111 II II II II II II II II II II II II II II February 13, 1997 1 97-78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUlHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH HILTON, FARNKOPF HOBSON,LLC TO CONDUCT A FEASffiILITY STUDY FOR A MA RECOVERY FACILITY AND TRANSFER STATION, AND PREPARATION OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayo joint and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof, hel on the ~<ijay of March , 1997, by the following yote, to wit: Council Members: Ayes Nays Abstain NEGRETE x CURLIN x ARIAS x OBERHELMAN x DEVLIN x ANDERSON x MILLER x Absent 16 17 18 19 March 20 21 l~p y t.1t//lL" Rachel Clark, City Clerk 6u ,0r.lfJd1{[}'J1.PdU1{1,/ti 11fyJu1Zt The foregoing resolution whereby approved this ~ day 0(J , 1997. ~~#l-K TOM MINOR, Mayor City of San Bernardino 22 23 Approved as to form and legal content: 24 25 26 James F. Penman, City Attorney 1 1 ,~lt6~ February ~, 1997 2-(i )? I 2 1 l:i'7 78 ADDENDUM "An AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PRE PARA nON OF REOUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND NEGOTIA nON SUPPORT This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this;;lorLday of ~./'--- , 1997, by and between the CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, California, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY" and HILTON, FARNKOPF & HOBSON, a limited liability California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "PROVIDER." WITNESSETH WHEREAS. CITY desires to obtain professional services to evaluate the feasibility of developing a Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station (MRFrrS), and if said MRFrrS is feasible, the CITY desires assistance in procuring a MRFrrS through the preparation of a Request for Proposal; and assistance in evaluating proposals and negotiating an Agreement with the successful MRFrrs vendor, WHEREAS, in order to prepare the feasibility study, and if appropriate, develop the Request for Proposal and Agreement. and provide other assistance in the evaluation of proposals and negotiation, it is necessary to retain the professional services of a qualified firm; and WHEREAS, PROVIDER is qualified to provide said professional services; and has submitted a proposal dated September 19, 1996 in response to the CITY's Request for Proposal which has been determined to adequately meet the needs of the CITY in this project NOW. TIIEREFORE, it is mutually agreed, as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES PROVIDER shall perform those services specified in the "Scope of Services" as set forth in Exhibit I, the CITY's Request for Proposal (Exhibit 2) and as set fonh in PROVIDER's proposaI dated September 19, 1996. a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated as though set forth in full; and includes revised Project Schedule (Exhibit "4") and Workplan dated November 15, 1996 (Exhibit "5"). 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The services of PROVIDER are to commence within thirty (30) days after the City has authorized work to stan by issuance of a Notice to Proceed. The scheduled completion dates specifically set forth in Exhibit "2" attached hereto and incorporated herein as tPough set fonh in full, will be adjusted by PROVIDER as the City authorizes the work. Such adjustments shall require City approval prior to commencement of performance of each phase, This Agreement shall be completed within two years of execution by the City unless extended by written agreement of both patties. The CITY shall issue a separate Notice to Proceed for Task: I, Task: 2, Task: 3 and Task: 4 as authorized by the Common Council. 3. CHANGES/EXTRA SERVI('ES A Performance of the work specified in the "Scope of Services," is made an obligation of PROVIDER under this Agreement. subject to any changes made subsequently upon mutual agreement of the panies. All such changes shall be incorporated by written amendments to this Agreement and include any increase . ;"1 18 or decrease in the amount of compensation due PROVIDER for the change in scope. Any change which has not been so incorporated shall not be binding on either party, B. No extra services shall be rendered by PROVIDER under this Agreement unless such extra services are authorized, in writing, by City prior to performance of such work. Authorized extra services shall be invoiced based on PROVIDER's "Schedule of Hourly Rates" dated September 19, 1996, a copy of which is attached, hereto. as Exhibit "4" and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 4, COMPENSATION A The City shall reimburse the PROVIDER on a firm, fixed price basis for Task I and Task 2 as set forth in PROVIDER's Proposal, PROVIDER shall be paid $45,500 upon completion ofTask I and, if authorized to proceed, PROVIDER shall be paid $24,000 upon completion of Task 2 for a total not to exceed of ,$69,500, Said payment shall be for PROVIDER's actual costs (including labor costs, employee benefits, overhead, profit, other direct and indirect costs) incurred by the PROVIDER in performance of the work. B. Upon receipt of Notice to Proceed on Task 3 and Task 4, Contractor shall be paid based upon submission of actual hours and at the hourly rates for each labor category as set forth in PROVIDER's "Schedule of Hourly Rates" (Exhibit 6). Unless otherwised agreed in writing between the CITY and the PROVIDER, the estimated not to exceed for Task 3 is $24,000 and Task 4 is $8,000, C. Said compensation shall not be altered unless there is significant alteration in the scope, complexity or character of the work to be performed, Any such significant alteration shall be agreed upon in writing by City and PROVIDER before commencement of performance of such significant alteration by PROVIDER Any adjustment of the total cost of services will only be permitted when the PROVIDER establishes and City has agreed, in writing, that there has been, or is to be, a significant change in: l. Scope. complexity, or character of the se,,~ces to be performed; 2, Conditions under which the work is required to be performed; and 3, Duration of work if the change from the time period specified in the Exhibit 2 warrants such adjustment. D. The PROVIDER is required to comply with all Federal, State and Local laws and ordinances applicable to the work. The PROVIDER is required to comply with prevailing wage rates in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1770. 5. PAYMENT BY CITY A. The billings for all services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted upon completion of each task by PROVIDER to City and shall be paid by City within thirty (30) days after receipt of same. excepting any amounts disputed by City. Dispute over any invoiced amount shall be noticed to the PROVIDER within ten (10) days of billing and a meet and confer meeting for purposes of resolution of such dispute shall be initiated by the City within ten (10) days of notice of such dispute, Each task as specified in Exhibit "I" shall be completed prior to final payment for each Task. B. Should litigation be necessary to enforce any term or provision of this Agreement, or to collect any portion of the amount payable under this Agreement, then all litigation and collection expenses, witness fees, and court costs, and attorney's fees shall be paid to the prevailing party, The costs, salary and expenses of the City Attorney and members of his office in enforcing this contract on behalf of the City shall be considered as "attorney's fees" for the purposes of this paragraph, ~ :; '( 7 8 A. The Director of Public Services of City, or his designee. shall have the right of general supervision over all work performed by PROVIDER and shall be City's agent with respect to obtaining PROVIDER's compliance hereunder, No payment for any services rendered under this Agreement shall be made without prior approval of the Director of Public Services or his designee. B, The Office of the Administrator may review and inspect the PROVIDER's activities during the progress of the program, 7, COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS PROVIDER hereby certifies that it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, marital status or national origin, PROVIDER shall promote affirmative action in its hiring practices and employee policies for minorities and other designated classes in accordance with Federal, State and Local laws. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: recruitment and recruitment advertising, employment, upgrading, and promotion, In addition, PROVIDER shall nol exclude from participation under this Agreement any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of age, handicap, or religion in compliance with State and Federal laws. 8, TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. This agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice in the event of substantial failure of the other party to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Each party shall have twenty (20) days following date of such notice within which to correct the substantial failure, giving rise to such notice In the event of termination of this Agreement, City shall within thirty (30) days pay PROVIDER for all the fees, charges and services performed to City's satisfaction by PROVIDER, which finding of satisfaction shall not be unreasonably withheld PROVIDER hereby covenants and agrees that upon termination of this Agreement for any reason, PROVIDER will preserve and make immediately available to City, or its designated representatives, maps. notes, correspondence, or records related to work paid for by the City and required for its timely completion, and to fully cooperate with City so that the work to be accomplished under this Agreement may continue within forty-five (45) days of termination. Any subsequent use of such incomplete documents shall be at the sole risk of the City, and the City agrees to hold harmless and indeD1Di1Y PROVIDER from any claims, losses, costs, including attorney's fees and liability arising out of such use, PROVIDER shall be compensated for such services in accordance with Exhibit "6". B. This agreement may be terminated for the convenience of the City upon thirty (30) days written notice to PROVIDER. Upon such notice, PROVIDER shall provide work product to City, and City shall compensate PROVIDER in the manner set forth above, C. Following the effective date of termination of this Agreement pursuant to this section, the Agreement shall continue until all obligations arising from such termination are satisfied. 9. CONTINGENCIES In the event that, due to causes beyond the control of and without the fault or negligence of PROVIDER, PROVIDER fails to meet any of its obligations under this Agreement, and such failure shall not constitute a default in performance, the City may grant to PROVIDER such extensions of time and make other arrangements or additions, excepting any increase in payment, as may be reasonable under the circumstances. Increases in payment shall be made ouly under the "changes" provision of this Agreement. PROVIDER shall notiJY City within three (3) days in writing when it becomes aware of any event or circumstance for which it claims or may claim an extension. ~ ., . . (? :, I 78 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR PROVIDER shall act as an independent contractor in the performance of the services provided for under this Agreement. PROVIDER shall furnish such services in its own manner and in no respecl shall it be considered an agent or employee of City, 11. ASSIGNMENT OR SUBCONTRACTING Except as set forth in PROVIDER's Proposal, neither this Agreement, nor any portion thereof, may be assigned by PROVIDER without the written consent of City. Any attempt by PROVIDER to assign or sulx:ontract any performance of this Agreement without the written consent of the City shall be null and void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement. All sulx:ontracts exceeding S 10,000, shall contain all provisions of this contract, 12, NOTICES All official notices relative to this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the following representatives of PROVIDER and City: PROVIDER CITY Laith B, Ezzet Vice President Hilton, F arnkopf & Hobson 3990 Westerly Place, #195 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr, James R. Howell Director of Public Services 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 13, RESPONSrnll..ITIES OF PARTIES A The PROVIDER may reasonably rely upon the accuracy of data provided through the City or its agents without independent evaluation, B. The City shall pay all costs of inspection and permit fees. Charges not specifically covered by the terms of this Agreement shall be paid as agreed by the parties hereto at the time such costs arise; but in no event shall the work to be performed hereunder cease as a consequence of any unforeseen charges unless by mutual written agreement of City and PROVIDER. C, All tracings, survey notes, and other original documents are instruments of service and shall remain the property of PROVIDER except where by law, precedent, or agreement these documents become public property, All such documents or records shall be made accessible to City, PROVIDER shall maintain all records for inSpeclion by the City, State, or their duly authorized representatives for a period of three (3) years after final payment. 14. COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEE PROVIDER warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Agreement upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the PROVIDER for the purpose of securing business, For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in accordance with the clause permitting termination for cause and, at its sole discretion, to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover. the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, , ~ 'j 78 15, HOLD HARMLESS CLAUSE A. PROVIDER hereby agrees to hold City, its elective, and appointive boards, officers, and employees, harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death, as well as from elaims for property damage, whieh may arise from PROVIDER's negligent acts, errors or omissions under this Agreement. B, PROVIDER shall indemnilY. defend and hold free and harmless the City, its officers. and its employees from all claims, damages, costs, expenses. and liability, ineluding, but not limited to, attorney's fees imposed upon them for any alleged infringement of patent rights or copyrights of any person or persons in consequence of the use by City, its officers, employees, agents, and other duly authorized representatives, of programs or processes supplied to City by PROVIDER under this Agreement. 16, INDEMNITY PROVIDER shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City from and ag/linst any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, proceedings, judgments, losses, damages, injuries, penalties, costs, expenses (including attorney's fees), and liabilities, of, by, or with respect to third parties, which arise solely from PROVIDER's negligent performance of services under this Agreement. PROVIDER shall not be responsible for, and City shall indemnilY, defend, and hold harmless PROVIDER from and ag/linst, any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, proceedings, judgments, losses, damages, injuries, penalties, costs, expenses (including attorney's fees) and liabilities of. by. or with respect to third parties, which arise solely from the City's negligence. With respect to any and all claims, demands, snits, actions, proceedings, judgments, losses, damages, injuries, penalties, costs, expenses (ineluding attorney's fees) and liabilities of, by or with respect to third parties, which arise from the joint or concurrent negligence of PROVIDER and City, each party shall assume responsibility in proportion to the degree of its respective fault. 17, L1ABILITYIINSURANCE A. PROVIDER's liability insurance for injury or damage to persons or property arising out of work for which legal liability may be found to rest upon PROVIDER other than for professional errors and omissions, shall be a minimum of $1.000.000, For any damage on account of any error, omission, or other professional negligence, PROVIDER's insurance shall be limited in a sum not to exceed $50,000 or PROVIDER's fee, whichever is greater. B. The City will require the PROVIDER to provide Workers Compensation and comprehensive general liability insurance, including completed operations and contractual liability, with coverage sufficient to insure the PROVIDER's indemnity. as above required; and, such insurance will inelude the City. the PROVIDER, their consultants, and each of their officers. agents and employees as additional insureds. C. PROVIDER shall provide evidence of insurance in the form of a policy of insurance, in which the City is named as an additional named insured to the extent of the coverage required by this Agreement. 18, VALIDITY Should any provision herein be found or deemed to be invalid, this Agreement sha11 be construed as not containing such provision, and all other provisions which are otherwise lawful shall remain in full force and affect, and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable, < ~'l '18 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreemcnt represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations. reprcsentations. understandings, and agreements. whether writtcn or oral. with respcctto the subject mattcr thereof, This Agreement may be amcnded only by written instrument signed by both parties. AGREEMENT FOR: MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PREPARATION OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND NEGOTIATION SUPPORT IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date written above by their dnly authorized officers on their behalf. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO BY~ 'Vtl A II.A'r\.-- To Minor, Mayor ATTEST: By: i!o,pju2. Clcll)C Rllchel Clark, City Clerk ~ Jox[[.icCGfm {bi7~ iJffu~ Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson, LLC Approved as to fonn and legal content: JAMES F. PENMAN City Attorney By: (1~, } ./Z:-~ C " I ~,' 18 HOMESTEAD INSURANCE COMPANY 200 PLAZA DRIVE PO BOX 1581 SECAUCUS, NJ 07096-1581 CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY A CLAIMS MADE POLICY POLICY NUMBER: MCF - 005014 C E R T I F I CAT E 0 FIN SUR A N C E HILTON, FARNKOPF & HOBSON 2201 walnut Avenue, Suite 280 Fremont, CA 94538-2334 2, Policy Period: From 06/01/96 To 06/01/97 Beginning 12:01 A.M. standard time at the address of the named insured as stated herein, unless sooner cancelled in accordance with Condition 10 herein. 1. Named Insured and Address: 3. The limits of the Company's liability are: $1,000,000 $1,000,000 each claim aggregate per policy period CERTIFICATE HOLDER This certificate confers no rights does not amend, policy above. Should the above described policy be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will endeavor to mail 10 days written notice to the certificate holder named above, but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representatives. is issued upon the extend or as a matter of information only and certificate holder. This certificate alter the coverage afforded by the Issue Date: OS/24/96 Countersigned by: .~,.'1ti .- ACORD~ CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE ISU Concal Insurance P.O. Box 2905 Dublin CA 94568-0905 Services CSR SY HILTONF 11/26/96 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER, THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW, COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE CA TE (MMIDDIYYl PRODUCER Stephen M. Bassel Pho", No, 510- 803 - 2200 F" No, 51n -803 -2225 INSURED COMPANY A Fremont Compensation Ins Co COMPANY B HILTON, FARNKOPF & HOBSON John Farnkopf/Jennifer Modlin 2201 Walnut Avenue, Ste 280 Fremont CA 94538 COMPANY C COMPANY o COVERAGES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BElOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICA TED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICA TE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. co TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LIMITS LTR OA TE (MMIDDfYY) OA TE (MMJDDfYY) ~NERAL LIABILITY GENERAL A..GGREGATE . COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG . I CLAIMS MADE D OCCUR PERSONAL It ADI/ INJURY . ~ OWNER'S It CONTRACTOR'S PROT EACH OCCURRENCE . FIRE DAMAGE (Any or-. fj...1 . r- MEO EXP IAnv one perICInl . AUTOMO~LE LIABILITY r- COMBINED SINGLE liMIT . r- ArN AUTO f- All OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (P... personl . r- SCHEDULED AUTOS f- HIRED AUTOS 80DIl Y INJURY ,POl'ilCcident) . NON-OWNED AUTOS r- PROPERTY DAMAGE . ~RAOE LIABILITY AUTO ONlY - EA ACCIDENT . _ ANY AUTO OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT . - AGGREGATE . EXCESS UABllITY EACH OCCURRENCE . ==i UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGA Tf . OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM . WORKERS COMPENSATION AND xlf~~~~C! I 10lf ....... EMPLOYERS' lIABILITY El EACH ACCIDENT .1,000,000. A THE PROPRIETOR! ~'NCL WN9564500502 09/06/96 09/06/97 El DlSf:ASf: . POLICY LIMIT '1,000,000. PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ARE: EXCL El DISEASE. EA EMPLOYEE .1,000,000. OTHER DESCRIPTION OF DPERATIONSIlOCATIONSNEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS SANBELM CANCELLA nON SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATt THEREOF. THE ISSUINO COMPANY WilL ENDEAVOR TO MAil .1....Q..... DAYS WRITTEN NonCE TO THE CEATFlCATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. eUT FAilURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL ....OSE NO oellOA nON OR llA~UTY CERTIFICATE HOLDER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT MR. LYNN MERRILL 300 NORTH "D" STREET SAN BERNARDINO CA 92418 OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY. ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORJUl)REP"HN~T7 ~ c<llllleORl'oFlATION 1988 I ACORD 25-5 11/951 ~, '18 . ACORD~ CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE CSR SY DA TE IMMIOO/'YYJ HILTONF 11/26/96 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE Golden Gate Insurance HOLDER, THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND. EXTEND OR 135 Paul Drive ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. San Rafael CA 94901-3317 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE Stephen M. Bassel COMPANY A ITT/Hartford Insurance Group Phone No, FuND. INSURED COMPANY B HILTON, FARNKOPF &< HOBSON COMPANY John Farnkopf/Jennifer Modlin C 2201 Walnut Avenue, Ste 280 COMPANY Fremont CA 94538 D COVERAGES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THA T THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICA TED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAYBE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES OESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. CO TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLlCY EXPlRA liON LIMITS LTR DATE (MMlD01YV) DATE (MMIDDIVYl ~ERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE '2,000,000. A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY SBAE18109 12/15/95 12/15/96 PRODUCTS. COMP/OP AGG . NOT INCLUD. I CLAIMS MADE [i] OCCUR PERSONAL" ADV INJURY . I, 000,000. OWNER'S" CONTRACTOR'S PROT EACH OCCURRENCE '1,000,000. ~ .300,000. - FIRE DAMAGE (Anv one firel MED EXP (Any one per~"l .5,000. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY , I '1,000,000. , - 12/15/95 I 12/15/96 COMBINED SINGLE lIMIT A - ANY AUTO SBAE18109 I ALL OWNED AUTOS 80DIL Y INJURY - (Pet'per~nl . - SCHEDULED AUTOS ~ HIRED AUTOS BOOll Y INJURY . ~ NON.OWNED AUTOS IPer.ccid.ntl - PROPERTY DAMAGE . GARAGE lIABILITY AUTO ONLY. EA ACCIDENT . - ANY AUTO OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: - - EACH ACCIDENT . AGGREGATE . EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE . ~ -UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGATE . OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM . WORKERS COMPENSATION AND I ~.f..~~ t.~~", r 10lJ" EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY EL EACH ACCIDENT . THE PROPRIETOR! R:NCL El DISEASE. POLICY lIMIT . PARTNERSIEXECUTIVE OFFICERS ARE: EXCL EL DISEASE. EA EMPlOYEE . OTHER i , , I DESCRIPTION OF OPERATlONS/LOCATIONSNEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS ! CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLA TJON SANBELM SHOULD AtI't OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCelLED BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING COMPANY WIU ENDEAVOR TO MAIL PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~ DAYa WNTTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. MR. LYNN MERRILL aUT FAilURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHAU IMPOSE NO oeLlOAnoN OR UAlSILITY 300 NORTH "0" STREET SAN BERNARDINO CA 92418 OF ANY IIND UPON THE COMPANY,ITS AGENTS OR REPAESENTATIVU. AUTHOAlZtD REPRESlNTATlVE Stephen II. Basse1 ACORD 25-5 (1/951 ... o ACaRll CQRl'ORA TION 1988 A CORD~ CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE CSR SY DATE (MMIDDIYY) HILTONF 11/26/96 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE ISU Conca1 Insurance Services HOLDER, THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND. EXTEND OR P.O. Box 2905 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW, Dublin CA 94568-0905 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE Stephen M. Basse1 COMPANY Pho..... No. 510-803-2200 ,..No, 510-803-2225 A ITT/Hartford Insurance Group INSURED COMPANY B HILTON, FARNlCOPF I'< HOBSON COMPANY John Farnkopf/Jennifer Modlin C 2201 Walnut Avenue, Ste 280 COMPANY Fremont CA 94538-2334 0 COVERAGES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL Tl-lE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. co TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LIMITS LTR OA TE (MMIDONY) DATE IMMIDDNYI ~NERALlIABllITY GENERAL AOGREGA TE '2,000,000. A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 57SBAGB6653 12/15/96 12/15/97 PRODUCTS. COMP/OP AGG . NOT APPL. l CLAIMS MADE [iJ OCCUR PERSONAL'" ADI/ INJURY 01,000,000. - OWNER'S &. CONTRACTOR'S PROT EACH OCCURRENCE '1,000,000. - FIRE DAMAGE lAny one fire' '300,000. MEO EXP IAny on. per~n) . 10,000. ~TOMOBIlE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGU: LIMIT '1,000,000. A - ANY AUTO 57SBAGBH6653 12/15/96 12/15/97 - ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY . SCHEDULED AUTOS lPer perwon) - ~ HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY . ~ NON.OWNED AUTOS (Per eecidentl - PROPERTY OAMAGE . ~RAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONlY - EA ACCIDENT . - ANY AUTO OTHER THAN AUTO ONlY: - EACH ACCIDENT . AGGREGATE . EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE . ~. UM"'ELLA 'ORM AGGREGA Tf . OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM . WORK.ERS COMPENSATION AND IWCSTATU-:I .J~lr EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY EL EACH ACCIDENT . THE PROPRIETOR! R:NCL EL DISEASE. POliCY LIMIT . PARTNERSIEXECUTlVf OFFICERS ARE: EXCL EL DISEASE. fA EMPlOYEE . OTHER OESCRlPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSNEHIClES/SPECIALITEMS CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLA liON SANBELM SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POUCIES I( CANCRLED BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF. THE tsSU1NG COMPANY WILL DfDEAVOR TO MAil PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2..L DAYS WRITTEN NOnCE TO THE CERTlACATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, MR. LYNN MERRILL BUT FAilURE TO MAil SUCH NonCE SHALL IMPalE NO 08UQAnON OR LIABILITY 300 NORTH "0" STREET SAN BERNARDINO CA 92418 OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY. ITS AOENT& OR NPfI(UNTA TrYU. AUTHORIZED REP~" /' ACORD 25-5 11/95) ....T o CORD CORPOAA TION 198B ~t' '1 'd ~I '18 EXHIBIT 1 9'1 '13 Exhibit 1 SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1: ASSESS FEASIBILITY AND ESTABLISH DESIGN PARAMETERS The objective of Task 1 is to assess the feasibility of developing a MRF/transfer station within the City of San Bernardino vis-a-vis other alternatives, and to determine the design parameters and estimated costs of an appropriately sized facility. The alternatives to building a MRF/transfer station in the City of San Bernardino include: . Using source separated collection programs, market based recycling programs, or other waste diversion programs and methods to meet the diversion goals without building a MRF; . Utilizing existing or proposed public and/or private facilities in other jurisdictions. Task lA: Conduct Kick-Off Meeting and Prepare Project Plan We will meet with City staff to confirm the project approach, roles of key participants, and project schedule. We will review an outline of key work products for the feasibility study. We will discuss with City staff both existing and proposed facilities that should be included as part of the feasibility study. We will prepare a Project Plan to document the key decisions made at the kick-off meeting. Task IB: Gather Regional Facility Data We will gather available information from the project sponsors of existing and proposed MRF/transfer stations in the region that may be available to the City of San Bernardino, based on the facilities identified during our kick-off meeting. We anticipate the facility options may include: . Burr-Tech's transfer station in Fontana which is currently under construction; . Western Waste's proposed transfer station in Chino; . Riverside County's proposed 1,300 ton per day Aqua Mansa transfer station/sorting facility, currently in the proposal evaluation stage; . Taormina Industries, which may develop an IPC in Colton as part of its recently acquired collection contract; . The major rail haul projects; and, . Other facilities proposed by various vendors. Page 1 97 78 Exhibit 1 Task IC: Determine City Facility Requirements Waste Stream Characteristics In order to define the most appropriate facility for the City, it will be necessary to assess the characteristics of the City's waste stream, the status and effectiveness of existing diversion programs, and the City's current and projected compliance with the waste diversion requirements of AB 939. The following documentation and information will be compiled and reviewed: . Waste Generation Study from the City's SRRE; . Current diversion rate for each existing program (green waste, curbside recycling, commercial recycling, etc.); . Cost of the existing diversion programs (cost per ton of material diverted); and, . Current citywide waste diversion rate (review City's annual report). From the analysis of this information we will identify the material recovery objectives for the facility. Opportunities for a Regional Facility Because of significant capital required to develop and equip a facility, the operating cost per ton can be reduced significantly if capacity utilization is maximized. Therefore it may be highly beneficial for the City to secure waste flow commitments from other cities in the area. To assess this potential, we will collect regional data on collection arrangements and existing waste flow commitments, and the quantities of waste currently generated, diverted, and disposed in the adjacent jurisdictions. We will also compile information on the existing and proposed waste diversion programs in these jurisdictions, such as the program type, operation, sorting or processing facilities used, and available cost data. Further Waste Transfer Needs of the City Given the uncertainty of the expansions proposed for the existing county landfills, the City should examine its out-of-county disposal options. For at least the near term there is an adequate supply of reasonably priced disposal capacity available in Southern California. However, the out-of-county landfills, including any of the proposed rail haul facilities, can only be economically utilized with an efficient transfer station. We will compile a listing of the capacity at various facilities in Southern California that may be available to the City during the next 5 to 7 years, and Page 2 r 97 78 Exhibit 1 provide an assessment of the need to include transfer capability in the eventual MRF design. Determine Optimal Facility Scope and Capacity The optimal facility scope and capacity will be determined by the results of our analysis of the following factors: . Characteristics of the City's waste stream; . Potential for use of the City facility by other jurisdictions; and, . Assessment of the future waste transfer needs of the City. We will define the desired size and scope of the facility in the following terms: . Material processing capacity required for the next 10 to 15 years (annual tons and tons per day); and, . Waste transfer capacity required for the next 10 to 15 years (annual tons and tons per day). Assess the Material Recovery Options Based on the characteristics of the expected waste stream for the facility, we will provide an assessment of the feasible material recovery options. These options will likely include mixed waste sorting, processing of source separated materials, and recovery of materials from construction and demolition debris. The results of this task will provide the foundation for the technical specifications of the RFP for facility development (if determined to be feasible) and will also provide the basis for evaluating the feasibility and cost effectiveness of the proposals that are received. For each option, we will report on such factors as technical reliability, material recovery effectiveness, relative operating cost, and flexibility and expandability to accommodate future changes in the characteristics of the waste stream. Task ID: Evaluate Cost of Alternatives Based on relevant facility alternatives identified in Task IB, we will calculate the cost per ton and total annual cost of hauling, processing, transfer, and disposal to the alternative facilities outside the City, and compare it to the cost of developing a facility within the City of San Bernardino. The cost analysis will be based on certain assumptions regarding travel times and distances from the City's waste centroid, utilizing available cost data from the City's existing collection operations and industry sources to estimate hauling and transportation cost, and tipping fee data provided by the sponsors of the existing and proposed facilities outside the City. Page 3 I 97 78 c Exhibit I For the material recovery options identified, we will provide the following cost information: . Capital and development cost (facilities and equipment); . Operating cost per ton for waste transfer; . Operating cost per ton for material processing and recovery (exclusive of the revenue received from sales of recovered materials); and, . Likely overhead and profit to be charged by a private operator. To ensure that the City is able to fully evaluate its options, we will also provide an assessment of the potential ownership and operating options available. These options will include publici private partnerships regarding ownership and/or operation of the facility, as well as cooperative ventures with adjacent jurisdictions. The results of our assessment will be presented in a decision matrix that will include such information as cost and risk factors for the City, and the degree of control that the City will have over the operation and future costs at the facility. The feasibility of the MRF options available to the City will be judged in relation to the other options available. These options would include continuation and expansion of existing waste diversion programs, implementation of new programs or collection strategies, or use of another processing facility by the City. These options will be evaluated and outlined, and the relative cost and effectiveness of each will be reported. Task IE: Evaluate Non-Financial Issues In addition to the cost of facilities, we will evaluate other issues which should be considered in evaluating whether to develop a MRF/transfer station within the City, such as project risks, flexibility, administration, control, compliance with AB 939 requirements, and other issues. Task IF: Document Findings and Prepare Draft Report We will document our findings based on the work performed in Task IA through IE, and prepare a report to the City describing the study's background, objectives, methodology, approach, and findings. Task IG/H: Review Draft Report with City Staff, and Prepare Final Report We will meet once with City staff to discuss the draft report, revise the report once based on written comments received from the City, and prepare a final report. Page 4 97 78 Exhibit 1 Task 11: Prepare Council Presentation and Present Results We will prepare a summary of our study findings and present them during one public meeting to the City Council. TASK 2: DEVELOP RFP PACKAGE The objective of Task 2 is to prepare an RFP and draft agreement for approval by the City Council and distribution to the six proposers previously selected by the City through the RFQ process. Task 2A: Develop RFP We will prepare an RFP for the proposed MRF/transfer station facility and service requirements. Typically, the RFP will contain: . An introduction describing the procurement objectives and process, guidelines for proposal submittal, and a schedule; . A description of current services and conditions; · Scope of services; . Proposal submission requirements; . Proposal evaluation process; . Attachments, including draft Agreement, proposal outline, financial information forms, rate adjustment process, anti-collusion affidavit, and notary's certification. The technical specifications of the RFP will be developed using the results of the feasibility analysis. We will define the characteristics of the waste stream to be processed, specify the short term and long term capacity requirements for the facility, and identify the material recovery and waste diversion levels that are to be achieved. If the facility is to include waste transfer capability, the capacity and technical requirements for this component will also be specified. Specific performance requirements will be listed in the RFP and proponents will be directed to provide evidence in their proposals that they will be able to meet these requirements. We will make it clear that it is the responsibility of the proponents to indicate how they intend to meet the City's requirements and to provide adequate documentation to support their claims. To ensure that the proposals are complete and comparable, we will provide worksheets for each proponent to use when describing the systems that they propose. We will also request information on equipment type, size, and proposed configuration, proposed staffing levels, facility organization and management plans, and overall facility maintenance and quality control plans. . Page 5 97 76 Exhibit 1 Task 2B: Develop Draft Agreement We will prepare a draft Agreement to accompany the RFP identifying the terms and conditions of the services to be provided to the City. The successful proposer will be required to sign the Agreement, and must propose any exceptions taken to the draft Agreement in writing as part of this proposal. Task 2C: Complete RFP Package and Present to Council We will meet once with City staff to review the draft RFP and Agreement, revise it as appropriate, and present it once to the City Council. TASK 3: EV ALVA TE SUBMIlTED PROPOSALS The objective of Task 3 is to evaluate the submitted proposals with the goal of selecting one or more vendors for final negotiations. Task 3A: Develop Evaluation Process General guidelines for the evaluation process will be included in the RFP developed in Task 2. During Task 3, we will implement the evaluation process by developing the specific procedures that will be used to evaluate the proposals, including selection of an evaluation panel. Task 38: Review and Evaluate Proposals We will initially review each of the proposals to determine the responsiveness of the proposals to the City's requirements. Proposals that fail to meet the City's minimum requirements will be deemed non-responsive. The remaining proposals will be evaluated based on the criteria developed in Task 3A. The cost evaluation will include a comparison of both the first year cost per ton and the total lump sum cost of the proposed services over the term of the agreement, based on the rate adjustment methodology specified in the RFP. This ensures that the proposals are evaluated using a standardized set of financial assumptions. The experience of the proposers will be based on the citations contained in their proposals for specific facilities developed and operated in other jurisdictions. The analysis of the proposers' financial resources will be based on information contained in the financial statements (income statement and balance sheet). We will compare the size of the San Bernardino contract to the proposers' existing revenue base to determine the impact of the proposed Page 6 91 78 Exhibit 1 contract on their existing operations, and we will compare key measures of financial stability to industry averages. The technical evaluation of the proposals will typically include the following elements. 1. Site suitability. . Location of the facility site in relation to the waste centroid of the City. . Size of the site in relation to proposed processing capacity and expected daily traffic levels. . Accessibility of the site for City collection trucks. . Permitability of the site (present zoning, adjacent land uses, potential environmental impacts). 2. General site layout and design. . Adequacy of vehicle maneuvering areas. . General efficiency of design - ability of the City trucks to move easily through the scales/check-in area, unload, and exit the site. 3. Capacity of the proposed facility in relation to the defined needs of the City. . Material recovery capacity. . Waste transfer capacity. 4. Material recovery proposal. . Proven reliability of the technology and processes proposed. . Ability to address the waste stream characteristics of the City. 5. Operating history and experience of the management team, 6. Ability of the proponent to secure waste and/or materials from other jurisdictions so that the capacity utilization of the facility is maximized. 7. Proposed start-up date. 8. Risks assumed by the proponent. . Responsibility of equipment and system performance. . Guaranteed material recovery levels. Page 7 97 7S Exhibit 1 Task 3C: Document Findings We will prepare a brief summary of our findings based on our evaluation prepared in Task 3B. Task 3D: Review Findings with the Evaluation Team We will meet once with members of the evaluation team to review the findings documented in our summary report prepared in Task 3C. We will identify any unresolved issues which will be clarified during the interviews in Task 3E. Task 3E: Interview Proposers Some or all of the proposers may be invited for interviews to discuss their proposal. The interviews will be used for two purposes: 1) to clarify elements of the proposals that are unclear; and 2) to meet the key members of the management team proposed by the vendors. Task 3F: Finalize Evaluation We will finalize our written evaluation based on any new information provided during the interviews in Task 3E. Task 3G: Meet with City to Select Vendor(s) for Negotiations We will meet with City staff and/or the City Council to present the final results of the evaluation and select a vendor(s) for negotiations. TASK 4: NEGOTIATE FINAL AGREEMENT AND PREPARE FINAL REPORT We will provide negotiation assistance to City staff by developing a negotiating strategy for unresolved issues or exceptions to the Agreement taken by the proposers, attending negotiation sessions, and evaluating the impact of key issues that may arise. We will also be available on an as-needed basis to answer questions, prepare a report to Council, and to present key elements of the final agreement to Council. Page 8 91 1S EXHIBIT 2 I S'( 78 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS DEVELOPMENT OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY AND TRANSFER STATION Introduction The City of San Bernardino is seeking proposals from innovative and qualified firms capable of assessing the feasibility of a Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station (MRFrrS) within the City of San Bernardino, developing a Request For Proposal (RFP) for the design, construction. management and operation of a MRFrrS, providing assistance in the evaluation of responses to the RFP, participating in the coordination and preparation of a final contract, and developing a final report for submission to Council. The City has established a budget of $70,000 to ensure the initiation and completion of these tasks, The period of performance is anticipated to be from November 1, 1996 to June 30,1997, Baclarround Under the California IntelP'ated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), the City is required to divert from landfill, through source reduction. compo sting, and recycling, 50"10 of the City's total waste stream by the year 2000. Currently, the residential recycling program is diverting approximately 50"10 of this waste stream, or 25% of the solid waste handled by the city. An aggressive commercial recycling program targeting paper is being developed. The City of San Bernardino has recognized the benefits of a Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station to aid with the compliance of the recycling goals of AB 939, as well as the effective transport of non-recyclable material for eventual disposal, Initial investigations were performed confirming the feasibility of a Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station within the City of San Bernardino. In August of 1993, SCS Engineers developed an analysis of alternatives for Material Recovery Facilities, Transfer Stations, and green waste facilities for the East Valley Coalition of San Bernardino County. The analysis consisted of background information. an inventory of existing or proposed MRFrrS facilities, an inventory of existing or proposed wood and green waste diversion facilities, and an environmental analysis of Material Recovery Facilities and Transfer Stations, In September of 1993, EMCON Associates prepared a MRFrrS feasibility analysis for the City of San Bernardino Public Services Department. Four sites were evaluated, EMCON Associates focused on three main points in their report: facility siting, MRFrrS scenario, and economic analysis. In February of 1994, EMCON Associates prepared an environmental site assessment for two of the four sites identified in the feasibility analysis. The site assessment focused on site location. site reconnaissance, geology and hydro-geology, local agency review, and regulatory review, In conclusion. no further efforts were made and site assessment was terminated. Stemming from the results of the initial investigations performed by SCS Engineers and EMCON Associates, on May 12, 1995, the Public Services Department issued a Request 1 :;'l '1 d For Qualifications (RFQ) for the design. construction. management and operation of a Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station within the City, In response, qualified firms with proven, professional experience were asked to submit a letter of interest and a statement of qualifications, Fourteen replies were received from firms in response to the initial RFQ. Phase I, which has recently been completed, consisted of the evaluation of these replies. As a result of Phase I, the top six candidates have been invited to continue participation in the selection process, Phase n of the proposed Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station process will involve the selection of a qualified consulting engineer (consultant) to assess the feasibility of a MRFrrS within the City of San Bernardino, to prepare a formal Request For Proposal document, and to evaluate submissions and prepare an award of contract for the selected firm. Following selection of a consultant and development of the RFP, the Request For Proposals will be delivered to the six firms chosen in Phase I. Ultimately, Phase n will conclude with the selection of a qualified firm for the design. construction. management and operation of the Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station within the City of San Bernardino, Scope of Services The City has determined four tasks essential for completion of the RFP process. These four tasks can be divided into two sections. The first section consists of Task 1. Task 1 involves a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of the proposed MRFrrS, Tasks 2,3, and 4 comprise the second half of the scope of services and will not be completed should the result of the feasibility study (Task I) recommend against development of the proposed Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, Task 2 incorporates the development of an RFP package, Task 3 - the evaluation of submissions, and Task 4 - participation in the coordination and preparation of a final contract, and development of a final report for submission to the Council, Should Task 2 commence, the City desires the consultant to develop a Request For Proposal which focuses on providing flexibility and maximum revenues for the City of San Bernardino. Task 1 - Reassess Feasibility and Establish Design Parameters It will be the responsibility of the consultant to assess the current regional demand for a MRFrrs. The City desires the consultant to determine the present needs of the City and whether a MRFrrS is necessary. The consultant may consider the following points, or any other points deemed necessary by the proposer, for assessing the regional demand of a MRFrrs: tonnage, need, feasibility, regional commitment, cost, site approval and permit ability, accessible alternate MRFrrs and tipping fees within a defined regional area, ownership and operational arrangements, and financial feasibility. If the consultant determines the need for a MRFrrS, as a result of this initial study, the City will request the consultant to commence with Task 2 of this project. If deemed necessary, the consultant can estimate the total material generated by the City of San Bernardino as well as the surrounding jurisdictions. To aid in evaluating the regional demand for a MRFrrS, the engineer may find it beneficial to determine the 2 .n 7d commitment of the surrounding cities to other MRF's or to the facility proposed by this project, Incorporating both the tonnage of recyclables anticipated, as well as regional commitment, the consultant can estimate the need or feasibility of the proposed MRFrrS, The proposed MRFrrS should be analyzed in terms of the most practicable scenario for the City of San Bernardino. Thus, the consultant may find it helpful to explore various ownership and operational arrangements capable of providing maximum revenues and flexibility to the City of San Bernardino. This investigation may include but not be limited to, public/private partnerships or cooperative arrangements with other jurisdictions located within the East Valley area of San Bernardino County, In order to assess financial feasibility, the City desires the consultant to estimate and compare (to the cost of the proposed MRFrrS) the cost of alternate collection programs and other diversion facilities capable ofachieving the same waste diversion as a MRFrrS in the City of San Bernardino. When assessing the current regional demand, the consultant shall identifY geographic areas within the City that are centrally located to the waste centroids of the identified options, (i.e, San Bernardino only, San Bernardino plus other jurisdictions) which may be appropriate for siting the MRFrrS, Specific parcels shall not be identified. Task 2 - Develop Request For Proposal PtlI:kage If the proposed MRFrrS project is deemed practicable for the City, it will be the responsibility of the consultant to prepare a Request For Proposals (RFP) package for the design, construction, management and operation of the MRFrrS, The RFP should, at minimum, include a discussion of the following points: design parameters - including but not limited to: technical equipment necessary, waste streams accepted, transportation of recyclables, waste flow control, draft agreement, and material grades processed, throughput capacity (tons per day), financing, operation (materials receipt, materials inspection and quality control, unacceptablelhazardous waste procedures), permitting/siting, and evaluation criteria & approach. The City does not want to limit the proposer to these points only, and encourages innovative and suitable additions when developing the Request For Proposals. The following points constitute a basic outline of the RFP for the consultant. Preparation of the RFP shall include all aspects related to the financing, construction, permitting, siting, materials marketing, and operation of a MRFrrS, for instance: -Design specifications should include any parameters determined essential by the consultant and shall be based on the findings resulting from Task 1. -Based on the initial study (Task I) which mayor may not include: total material generated by the City, commitment of the surrounding jurisdictions, and any flexibility for expansion, the consultant should specifY the throughput capacity necessary for the MRFrrS, -The City asks that the consultant prepare an estimate of the costs necessary for this project by referencing experience with similar projects, along with knowledge 3 :JI 7d ! of the proposed facility gained through the feasibility study and establishment of design parameters (Task I), -The City wishes the consultant to specify the appropriate permitting and siting requirements for design, construction, management and operation of the proposed 'MRF rrs which shall be the responsibility of the successful vendor, -As part of the RFP process, the consultant shall develop an effective evaluation criteria and a general scoring approach for use in evaluating the submissions for approval by the City. Task 3 - Evaluate Submissions The City desires that the consultant develop an evaluation process which incorporates review by an evaluation team, which may include City staff and other qualified personnel. Task 4 - Final Agreement, and Final Report After the evaluation of submissions, it will be the responsibility of the consultant to support a City team in the coordination, negotiation, and preparation of a final agreement between the City of San Bernardino and the selected firm. Ultimately, a final report summarizing the steps taken and outcome of the evaluation process will be prepared by the consultant for presentation to the City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council. Contents of ProDosals Proposals shall contain only information relevant to the SCOPE OF SERVICES as set forth above, Proposals shall be kept to a length of no more than twenty-five (25) numbered pages, excluding title page, table of contents, appendix. separate cost proposal, writing sample, and any additional City provided forms. In addition, a single appendix, consisting of no more than fifteen (15) numbered pages is allowable. The City requests that the proposals be placed in two separate envelopes. One envelope shall contain all sections of the proposal cited below excluding any aspects related to costs (sections 1-7, 9 & 10), The second envelope will contain any and all estimation of costs for completion of each individual task (section 8). Proposals shall he organized in individual sections, corresponding with the following section titles. The proposal in its entirety, shall include all of the following information: I, PROPOSER IDENTIFICATION: Provide name and title of the principle contact person, legal name and address of the firm, and phone/fax numbers. 2, CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Proposer shall provide a statement of relationship and/or employment for any of the following six entities or their subsidiaries: Browning Ferris Industries, Burrtec Waste Industries Inc" Norca1 Engineering and Construction, Taormina Industries Inc., Waste Management Inc., and Western 4 :) 'I 7.:3 ' Waste Industries, This shall include a detailed record of all projects undertaken in the County of San Bernardino during the past five years for any of these six firms, In addition, proposer shall also include any existing or past contracts relating to solid waste, landfills, MRF's, transfer stations, or recycling programs with any City or County agency within San Bernardino County during the last five years, 3. WORK PLAN AND METHODOLOGY: Proposer shall present a detailed work plan describing proposer's method for accomplishing each task. It will be the responsibility of the proposer to present the method to be used for evaluating the current regional demand for a MRFfTS (Task I) which may include the following points or any other points deemed necessary by the proposer: tonnage, need, feasibility, regional commitment, and financial feasibility. In addition, specity the method the proposer will use to prepare the RFP package (Task 2) including all steps to be taken to arrive at the necessary design parameters, throughput capacity, financing, operation, permitting/siting, evaluation criteria/approach, or any other parameters determined essential by the proposer. For Task 3 and Task 4, the proposer shall provide a detailed plan illustrating the proposer's method for evaluating submissions, coordinating, and preparing the contractual agreement, and developing a fina1 report for council. 4. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING: Proposals shall include the following: (I) Length of time that consultant's company has existed. (2) Type of ownership, such as corporation, partnership, etc, (3) Resumes of principal staff responsible for any aspect of the project. (4) Design and technical qualifications of the project team. (5) Organization chart illustrating the assigned responsibilities of the staff in relation to the RFP. 5, PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS: Provide project management and procurement process qualifications, or other relevant qualifications demonstrating the ability of the proposer to develop and evaluate an RFP for the City of San Bernardino. 6. RELATED EXPERIENCE: Describe recent and relevant experience of consultant/staff with MRFfTS and RFP within the last five years. Include clients served, length of contract, services rendered, and reference (with phone number), 7, PROJECT SCHEDULE: Provide a schedule for the implementation of this project. 5 ,97 1$ 8, COST: Provide an estimation of costs for completion of Task I & 2, For Task 3 & 4, proposer shall provide a dollar estimate and fully burdened labor rate for each labor category, It is anticipated that Task 1 & 2 shall be issued on a firm, fixed price basis; due to the uncertainty of the length of time or involvement in support of Task 3 & 4, a time and material basis shall be used, 9, WRITING SAMPLE: Provide a copy of a RFP developed by the proposer for a similar, past project - or other writing sample - demonstrating the ability to develop and evaluate an RFP for the City of San Bernardino, 10. PERFORMANCE/RESULTS OF PREVIOUS WORK BY CONSULT ANT: Proposer shall provide a detailed record noting performance and results of any previous work related to the design, construction, management, or operation of a similar project. The following points constitute a basic outline for the consultant. The City encourages suitable additions. (1) Include verification of project implementation. Discuss how the project was implemented including the reasons for any delays in the initial project schedule/work plan created by the proposer. (2) Provide an assessment of the services provided as a result of the project. Discuss the effectiveness of the project in meeting the needs of the serviced community including any diversion percentages prior to and following implementation of the project, (3) Provide documentation of all costs incurred as a result of project implementation, and compare total cost to the budget established for the project. (4) Provide the name( s) of the proposer's project personnel and their employers at the time of this previous project work. Format of Submission Proposal shall include a title page and table of contents followed by the body of the proposal comprised of: - PROPOSER IDENTIFICATION - CONFLICT OF INTEREST - WORK PLAN AND METHODOLOGY - PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING - PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS - RELATED EXPERIENCE - PROJECT SCHEDULE 6 97 78 _ COST (all cost estimations shall be placed in an envelope separate from all other sections of the proposal) - WRITING SAMPLE - PERFORMANCE/RESULTS OF PREVIOUS WORK BY CONSULTANT: The body may be followed by an appendix of no more than fifteen (15) pages, Ratinl! Scales The initial part of the evaluation will include a pass or fail criteria. Failure of the proposer to include anyone of the following sections will result in non-responsiveness of the submission: PROPOSER IDENTIFICATION, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, WORK PLAN AND METHODOLOGY, PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING, PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS, RELATED EXPERIENCE, PROJECT SCHEDULE, COST, WRITING SAMPLE and PERFORMANCFJRESULTS OF PREVIOUS WORK BY CONSULTANT. If the preceding sections are present, a ranking system will be utilized and points will be assigned to each of the ten sections. Scores for each heading will be summed and a total number of points will be determined for each proposal. Those scoring highest will be invited to continue in the selection process. Submittal of Proposals Print all proposals on both sides of each page. Proposals must be printed on recycled paper, Submit (I) original and (4) copies of the proposal to: Lynn Merrill, Recycling Coordinator Public Services Department Fourth Floor City of San Bematdino 300 North 'D' Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 (909) 384-5549 Deadline September 12, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. at Public Services Department Counter, 4th Floor City Hall, 300 North D Street, San Bernardino, California 92418. Late proposals wn.L NOT BE ACCEPTED AFfER THIS TIME. Tentative Schedule of Events The following is a tentative schedule of events that may be subject to change: August 6, 1996 City issues RFP August 21,1996 Pre-Proposer Conference September 12, 1996 Proposals due 7 91 7,8 October 21, 1996 Contract Award The pre-proposal conference is scheduled for August 21, 1996 at 10:00 a,m, in Public Services Conference Room A., 4th Floor, City Hall, 300 North D Street, San Bernardino, Parking is available in either the north parking lot at Court Street and E Street, or on the 5th level of the parking structure south of City Hall. ProDOsal Coordinator Mr. Lynn Merrill, Recycling Coordinator, will be the proposal coordinator for this project. Any inquiries regarding this proposal should be directed to Mr. Merrill at (909) 384-5549. 8 f{1 78 EXHIBIT 3 97 78 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Proposal to Develop an RFP for a MRF and Transfer Station .. .. .. September 19,1996 [ I l I I I I [ I Prepared by: Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195 Newport Beach, California 92660-2311 Phone: 714/251-8628 Facsimile: 714/251-9741 This proposal is printed on recycled paper and copied on both sides to reduce waste. . -......- HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC ~'l 78 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Proposal to Develop an RFP for a MRF and Transfer Station I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Section D .. ~ escnption 1. Proposer Identification 1 2. Conflict of Interest 1 3. Workplan Overview 2 4. Project Organization & Staffing 11 5. Qualifications 20 6. Related Experience 24 7. Project Schedule 29 8. Cost (separate envelope) 30 9. Writing Sample (attached to original only) 30 10. Results of Previous Work (included in Section 6) 30 Appendix: HF&H Statement of Qualifications and Solid Waste Experience Summary ~ \ I ,. I I. I' I [, I 1 l" I- I I. ! . ~'l 78 SECTION 1 PROPOSER IDENTIFlCA nON Principal Contact: Laith B. Ezzet, Vice President Firm Name: Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 3990 Westerly Place, #195 Newport Beach, California 92660 Address: Telephone: 714/251-8628 Facsimile: 714/251-9741 SECTION 2 CONFLICT OF INTEREST HF&H provides solid waste consulting services ~c1usively to local governments to avoid both real and apparent conflicts of interest that can arise in firms that attempt to serve both the public and private sectors. HF&H has not worked for any of the six vendors. In 1995, HF&H assisted the County of San Bernardino with its proposed franchise program for solid waste collection, and calculated a fee for the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund to reimburse the County General Fund for the disposal sites. In May to July 1994, our subconsultant, Aurora Associates, performed a market survey for California Interail, a joint venture to which Western Waste Industries is a partner. 1 ~'l 78 SEcrION 3 WORKPLAN OVERVIEW As requested by the City, we propose to perform this engagement in two phases. Phase I consists of performance of a feasibility study (Task 1) and, if directed to proceed by the City, preparation of an RFP and draft agreement (Task 2). Phase IT consists of evaluation of the proposals (Task 3) and negotiation of a final agreement with the selected vendor (Task 4). A graphical overview of key elements of the proposed workplan is presented at the end of this section on page 10. TASK 1: ASSESS FEASIBILITY AND ESTABLISH DESIGN PARAMETERS The objective of Task 1 is to assess the feasibility of developing a MRF/transfer station within the City of San Bernardino vis-a.-vis other alternatives, and to determine the design parameters and estimated costs of an appropriately sized facility. The alternatives to building a MRF/transfer station in the City of San Bernardino include: . Using source separated collection programs, market based recycling programs, or other waste diversion programs and methods to meet the diversion goals without building a MRF; . Utilizing existing or proposed public and/or private facilities in other jurisdictions. Task lA: Conduct Kick-off Meeting and Prepare Project Plan We will meet with City staff to confirm the project approach, roles of key participants, and project schedule. We will review an outline of key work products for the feasibility study. We will discuss with City staff both existing and proposed facilities that should be included as part of the feasibility study. We will prepare a Project Plan to document the key decisions made at the kick-off meeting. Task IB: Gather Regional Facility Data We will gather available information from the project sponsors of existing and proposed MRF/transfer stations in the region that may be available to the City of San Bernardino, based on the facilities identified during our kick-off meeting. Based on our prior work in other jurisdictions, we are familiar with many of the facility options available. As a result, we can perform this task quickly at minimum cost to the City. We anticipate the facility options may include: . Burr-Tech's transfer station in Fontana which is currently under construction; . Western Waste's proposed transfer station in Chino; . Riverside County's proposed 1,300 ton per day Agua Mansa transfer station/sorting facility, currently in the proposal evaluation stage; 2 ;;7 78 " . Taormina Industries, which may develop an IPC in Colton as part of its recently acquired collection contract; . The major rail haul projects; and, . Other facilities proposed by various vendors. Task IC: Determine City Facility Requirements Waste Stream Characteristics In order to define the most appropriate facility for the City, it will be necessary to assess the characteristics of the City's waste stream, the status and effectiveness of existing diversion programs, and the City's current and projected compliance with the waste diversion requirements of AB 939. The following documentation and information will be compiled and reviewed: . Waste Generation Study from the City's SRRE; . Current diversion rate for each existing program (green waste, curbside recycling, commercial recycling, etc.); . Cost of the existing diversion programs (cost per ton of material diverted); and, . Current citywide waste diversion rate (review City's annual report). From an analysis of this information we will identify the material recovery objectives for the facility. Opportunities for a Regional Facility The economics of scale are an important consideration during the planning for a MRF project. Because of the significant capital required to develop and equip a facility, the operating cost per ton can be reduced significantly if capacity utilization is maximized. Therefore it may be highly beneficial for the City to secure waste flow commitments from other cities in the area. To assess this potential, we will collect regional data on collection arrangements and existing waste flow commitments, and the quantities of waste currently generated, diverted, and disposed in the adjacent jurisdictions. We will also compile information on the existing and proposed waste diversion programs in these jurisdictions, such as the program type, operator, sorting or processing facilities used, and available cost data. We already have much of this program and facility data in our files. Future Waste Transfer Needs of the City Given the uncertainty of the expansions proposed for the existing county landfills, the City should examine its out-of-county disposal options. For at least the near term there is an adequate supply of reasonably priced disposal capacity available in Southern California. However, the out-of-county landfills, including any of the 3 :; 'I 78 proposed rail haul facilities, can only be economically utilized with an efficient transfer station. We will compile a listing of the capacity at various facilities in Southern California that may be available to the City during the next 5 to 7 years, and provide an assessment of the need to include transfer capability in the eventual MRF design. Determine Optimal Facility Scope and Capacity The optimal facility scope and capacity will be determined by the results of our analysis of the following factors: . Characteristics of the City's waste stream; . Potential for use of the City facility by other jurisdictions; and, . Assessment of the future waste transfer needs of the City. We will define the desired size and scope of the facility in the following terms: . Material processing capacity required for the next 10 to 15 years (annual tons and tons per day); and, . Waste transfer capacity required for the next 10 to 15 years (annual tons and tons per day). Assess the Material RecoveJ;y Options Based on the characteristics of the expected waste stream for the facility we will provide an assessment of the feasible material recovery options. These options will likely include mixed waste sorting, processing of source separated materials, and recovery of materials from construction and demolition debris. The results of this task will provide the foundation for the technical specifications of the RFP for facility development (if determined to be feasible) and will also provide the basis for evaluating the feasibility and cost effectiveness of the proposals that are received. For each option we will report on such factors as technical reliability, material recovery effectiveness, relative operating cost, and flexibility and expandability to accommodate future changes in the characteristics of the waste stream. Task ID: Evaluate Cost of Alternatives Based on relevant facility alternatives identified in Task 1B, we will calculate the cost per ton and total annual cost of hauling, processing, transfer, and disposal to the alternative facilities outside the City, and compare it to the cost of developing a facility within the City of San Bernardino. The cost analysis will be based on certain assumptions regarding travel times and distances from the City's waste centroid, utilizing available cost data from the City's existing collection operations and 4 ;; '{ "18 industry sources to estimate hauling and transportation cost, and tipping fee data provided by the sponsors of the existing and proposed facilities outside the City. For the material recovery options identified, we will provide the following cost information: . Capital and development cost (facilities and equipment); . Operating cost per ton for waste transfer; . Operating cost per ton for material processing and recovery (exclusive of the revenue received from sales of recovered materials); and, . Likely overhead and profit to be charged by a private operator. To ensure that the City is able to fully evaluate its options, we will also provide an assessment of the potential ownership and operating options available. These options will include public/private partnerships regarding ownership and/or operation of the facility, as well as cooperative ventures with adjacent jurisdictions. The results of our assessment will be presented in a decision matrix that will include such information as cost and risk factors for the City, and the degree of control that the City will have over the operation and future costs at the facility. The feasibility of the MRF options available to the City will be judged in relation to the other options available. These options would include continuation and expansion of existing waste diversion programs, implementation of new programs or collection strategies, or use of another processing facility by the City. These options will be evaluated and outlined, and the relative cost and effectiveness of each will be reported. Task IE: Evaluate Non-Financial Issues l ! I I t In addition to the cost of facilities, we will evaluate other issues which should be considered in evaluating whether to develop a MRF/transfer station within the City, such as project risks, flexibility, administration, control, compliance with AB 939 requirements, and other issues. Task IF: Document Findings and Prepare Draft Report We will document our findings based on the work performed in Tasks IA through IE, and prepare a report to the City describing the study's background, objectives, methodology, approach, and findings. Task IGIH: Review Draft Report with City staff, and Prepare Final Report We will meet once with City staff to discuss the draft report, revise the report once based on written comments received from the City, and prepare a final report. , , 5 ..,7 '7iJ Task 11: Prepare Council Presentation and Present Results We will prepare a summary of our study findings and present them during one public meeting to the City Council. TASK2: DEVELOPRFPPACKAGE The objective of Task 2 is to prepare an RFP and draft agreement for approval by the City Council and distribution to the six proposers previously selected by the City through the RFQ process. Task 2A: Develop RFP We will prepare an RFP for the proposed MRF/transfer station facility and service requirements. Typically, the RFP will contain: . An introduction describing the procurement objectives and process, guidelines for proposal submittal, and a schedule. . A description of current services and conditions; · Scope of services; . Proposal submission requirements; . Proposal evaluation process; . Attachments, including draft Agreement, proposal outline, financial information forms, rate adjustment process, anti-collusion affidavit, and notary's certification. The technical specifications of the RFP will be developed using the results of the feasibility analysis. We will define the characteristics of the waste stream to be processed, specify the short term and long term capacity requirements for the facility, and identify the material recovery and waste diversion levels that are to be achieved. If the facility is to include waste transfer capability, the capacity and technical requirements for this component will also be specified. Specific performance requirements will be listed in the RFP and proponents will be directed to provide evidence in their proposals that they will be able to meet these requirements. We will make it clear that it is the responsibility of the proponents to indicate how they intend to meet the City's requirements and to provide adequate documentation to support their claims. To ensure that the proposals are complete and comparable, we will provide worksheets for each proponent to use when describing the systems that they propose. We will also request information on equipment type, size, and proposed configuration, proposed staffing levels, facility organization and management plans, and overall facility maintenance and quality control plans. 6 ~'1 7.J ' Task 2B: Develop Draft Agreement We will prepare a draft Agreement to accompany the RFP identifying the terms and conditions of the services to by provided to the City. The successful proposer will be required to sign the Agreement, and must propose any exceptions taken to the draft Agreement in writing as part of the proposal. By including the draft Agreement with the RFP, negotiations with the successful proposer can be limited to the exceptions taken, resulting in a reduced need for clarifications during the negotiation process and an expedited procurement schedule. Task 2C: Complete RFP Package and Present to Council We will meet once with City staff to review the draft RFP and Agreement, revise it as appropriate, and present it once to the City Council. TASK 3: EVALUATE SUBMITIED PROPOSALS The objective of Task 3 is to evaluate the submitted proposals with the goal of selecting one or more vendors for final negotiations. 3A: Develop Evaluation Process l ! l I General guidelines for the evaluation process will be included in the RFP developed in Task 2. During Task 3, we will implement the evaluation process by developing the specific procedures that will be used to evaluate the proposals, including selection of an evaluation panel. Typically, the evaluation process should allow for a reasonable and objective basis for the evaluation, while allowing enough flexibility for the City to ensure that the most highly rated proposal indeed meets all of the City's requirements. Other evaluations we have been involved with have included the following criteria: costs, technical evaluation (including waste diversion potential), proven experience providing similar services to other jurisdictions, financial resources, exceptions to the draft agreement, indemnifications, and other factors. 3B: Review and Evaluate Proposals We will initially review each of the proposals to determine the responsiveness of the proposals to the City's requirements. Proposals that fail to meet the City's minimum requirements will be deemed non-responsive. The remaining proposals will be evaluated based on the criteria developed in Task 3A. The cost evaluation will include a comparison of both the first year cost per ton and the total lump sum cost of the proposed services over the term of the agreement, based on the rate adjustment methodology specified in the RFP. This ensures that the proposals are evaluated using a standardized set of financial assumptions. l 7 I ~'( 78 The experience of the proposers will be based on the citations contained in their proposals for specific facilities developed and operated in other jurisdictions. The analysis of the proposers' financial resources will be based on information contained in the financial statements (income statement and balance sheet). We will compare the size of the San Bernardino contract to the proposers' existing revenue base to determine the impact of the proposed contract on their existing operations, and we will compare key measures of financial stability to industry averages. The technical evaluation of the proposals will typically include the following elements: 1. Site suitability. . Location of the facility site in relation to the waste centroid of the City. . Size of the site in relation to proposed processing capacity and expected daily traffic levels. . Accessibility of the site for City collection trucks. . Permitability of the site (present zoning, adjacent land uses, potential environmental impacts). 2. General site layout and design. . Adequacy of vehicle maneuvering areas. . General efficiency of design - ability of the City trucks to move easily through the scales/check-in area, unload, and exit the site. 3. Capacity of the proposed facility in relation to the defined needs of the City. · Material recovery capacity. . Waste transfer capacity. 4. Material recovery proposal. . Proven reliability of the technology and processes proposed. . Ability to address the waste stream characteristics of the City. 5. Operating history and experience of the management team. 6. Ability of the proponent to secure waste and/or materials from other jurisdictions so that the capacity utilization of the facility is maximized. 7. Proposed start-up date. 8 ~'i 78 8. Risks assumed by the proponent. . Responsibility of equipment and system performance. . Guaranteed material recovery levels. Task 3C: Document Findings We will prepare a brief summary of our findings based on our evaluation prepared in Task 3B. Task 3D: Review Findings with the Evaluation Team We will meet once with members of the evaluation team to review the findings documented in our summary report prepared in Task 3C. We will identify any unresolved issues which will be clarified during the interviews in Task 3E. TASK 3E: Interview Proposers Some or all of the proposers may be invited for interviews to discuss their proposal. The interviews will be used for two purposes: 1) to clarify elements of the proposals 'I that are unclear; 2) to meet the key members of the management team proposed by the vendors. Task 3F: Finalize Evaluation We will finalize our written evaluation based on any new information provided during the interviews in Task 3E. I I I I I ! Task 3G: Meet with City to Select Vendor(s) for Negotiations We will meet with City staff and/or the City Council to present the final results of the evaluation and select a vendor(s) for negotiations. TASK 4: NEGOTIATE FINAL AGREEMENT AND PREPARE FINAL REPORT We will provide negotiation assistance to City staff by developing a negotiating strategy for unresolved issues or exceptions to the Agreement taken by the proposers, attending negotiation sessions, and evaluating the impact of key issues that may arise. We will also be available on an as-needed basis to answer questions, prepare a report to Council, and to present key elements of the final agreement to Council. 9 ~'l 78 PROPOSED WORK PLAN MarkoW..do Aaae.ameut Teclmlcal AueOllll1...t Determine todli'l' requirements De<ermine optimal taciIl'l'size ...d~ IdeDtity recional opportuaities Well material recovery aptiou ""'- tu..... wute trauter Deeds or tho Ci'l' Fln."~.l AooeOllll1...t Determinecmtol &he..t f.asibl. taciIitJ ""'- .......bip aDd ope__ ""- DedDe COIU rL altwbatins to lIle fodIi'l' Procunment Procea 10 AbandOD MRF procurement MRFNot Feuible Prep... an, cIooeIop ..oJoolioo c:riIerio Admioistor 006citalioa ,..... EYoJoote ...d rook JIlOI>OUIs Prep... nCllf--d.ltio_ Aais. with ......... .....,datlooo ;,'1 7 U SECI10N 4 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING 1) HF&H has existed since 1989. 2) HF&H is a Limited Liability Corporation. Staff Descriptions Robert D. Hilton. Project Director Robert Hilton, President of HF&H, is a Certified Management Consultant and will serve as Project Director. Mr. Hilton has over 23 years of public management experience in county and city government and special districts, the past 15 years as a consultant. Mr. Hilton has been responsible for procuring and negotiating solid waste facility and services contracts for dozens of California jurisdictions, including preparation of RFPs, proposal evaluation, and contract negotiation. He has provided expert advice to more than 150 agencies, including cost of service studies; financial feasibility studies; policy studies; organizational/management studies; privatization studies; franchise bid processes and contract negotiation; and rate process development. Laith B. Ezzet. Project Manager l I I I. L l. r. L I Laith Ezzet, Vice President of our Southern California solid waste consulting practice, is a Certified Management Consultant and will serve as Project Manager. Mr. Ezzet has 11 years of experience as an economist and solid waste consultant. Mr. Ezzet has recently managed transfer station and MRF feasibility studies, and solid waste system cost analyses, for the City of Beverly Hills, City of Glendale, and Riverside County. He has also managed procurement engagements for solid waste services contracts, including RFP preparation, proposal evaluation, and negotiation support. Joseph Reisdorf. Engineer Joseph Reisdorf is a principal with Aurora Associates (subcontractor) and will serve as the engineer responsible for establishing MRF/transfer station design criteria and performance standards and evaluating the technical sections of the proposals. Mr. Reisdorf has over 18 years experience developin& implementing, and evaluating solid waste projects, programs, and operations. Mr. Reisdorf holds a degree in engineering from the Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, New York, and has extensive experience with the planning and development of a variety of energy and solid waste projects. He has completed numerous solid waste planning studies and has provided a complete range of services for the 11 9 'I '7 8 development of a variety of material recovery and recycling facilities. Current and recently completed projects include the Gold Coast Recycling facility in Ventura, the Los Padres Resource Recovery Park in Guadalupe, and the Vernon Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station in Vernon. He currently teaches a course at DC Berkeley entitled The Design and Operation of Materials Recovery Facilities. David L. Davis. Feasibility Analyst David Davis, Senior Associate, will be the analyst responsible for gathering data and preparing the analytical model under Mr. Ezzet's direction to evaluate the financial feasibility of the proposed MRF/transfer station vis-a.-vis the alternatives. Mr. Davis is a Certified Management Accountant with 10 years of experience as a controller in the solid waste industry and as a solid waste consultant. Mr. Davis was the lead analyst responsible for our feasibility analysis for the City of Glendale and Riverside County, and evaluated MRF proposals for Western Ventura County. Scott Hanin. Procurement Analyst Scott Hanin, Senior Associate, will be the procurement analyst responsible for assisting Mr. Hilton and Mr. Ezzet in the preparation of the Request for Proposals. Mr, Hanin's experience includes previous work for the New York City Sanitation Department, where he was involved in the negotiation of solid waste contracts for diversion programs. He has been the primary analyst responsible for preparing RFPs and agreements, and evaluating proposals, for several jurisdictions throughout California. A project organization chart is provided on the following page, followed by resumes for key staff. , l 12 :,'{ '7 il ' f' I , , , RODe~p. ~.il,~n?'j . . ",~residerit:':.:: ;'" Project Director };> Review workproducts };> Attend key client 4 meetings };> Direct preparation of RFP and draft Agreement };> Develop negotiation strategy >> Negotiate Agreement i' i , I I [ I l: L L 1. L L f' ,..Sc:ottH~m::0 "'-/< ----,'I,,'-"";..b/&" Senil)J:A.sslig~fe .' Procurement Analyst };> Prepare sections of RFP and draft agreement };> Evaluate cost proposals PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART L M rrill . l' ynn e . ,%', Recyc1iPgto~rdill;a~or City o~San.Beq\~dino .... . e,'.."', , .... y'CA,-"., .~",..;."",... .- ....g,"~.,., --"'.\~ J" .'. ,}m. Project Manager Engineer };> Develop detailed >> Establish design . workplans criteria and perfor- >> Attend client meetin,gs mance standards >> Develop feasibility >> Estimate facility costs findings >> Prepare technical >> Prepare RFP package sections on RFP >> Summarize proposal };> Evaluate technical portions of proposals evaluation };> Present results };> Participate in negotiations . DavidPavlS .i:Jt:>'. ~iill>r . . "'Sciatec;ii$~ .. ..... ~._.. '!v.. Feasibility Analyst >> Gather data };> Develop model };> Calculate and analyze results ~~_eb ...", k~~l };> Prepare documents };> Load data 13 ~'l 7::3 STAFF RESUMES ROBERT D. HILTON. PRESIDENT lHF&H) Education Masters, Public Administration, California State University, San Jose B.A., Political Science, California State University, San Jose Professional Certification Certified Management Consultant (CMC Professional Certification) Range of Experience Over 23 years of public management experience in county and city government and special districts, the past 15 years as a consultant. Mr. Hilton has been responsible for: cost of service studies; utility rate analysis; financial feasibility studies; policy studies; organizational and management studies; privatization studies; franchise bid processes and contract negotiation; rate process development; financial consulting and litigation consulting. He has provided expert advice to more than 150 agencies in the areas of water and waste water, solid waste and rent control. Professional and Business History Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC: President, August 1989 to present. Price Waterhouse: Senior Manager, July 1985 to August 1989; Manager, August 1983 to July 1985. City and County of San Francisco: Solid Waste Program Manager, March 1982 to July 1983. City and County of San Francisco: Clean Water Program. Assistant Executive Director- Audit and Control, July 1981 to March 1982. County of Santa Oara: Director of the Office of Management and Budget, June 1978 to July 1981; Budget Director, June 1976 to June 1978; Management Analyst, August 1973 to June 1976. California State University, San Jose: Graduate Instructor, Public Management and Budgeting Professional Organizations . Institute of Management Consultants . California Municipal Utilities Association . International City Managers Association . California Society of Municipal Finance Officers . Solid Waste Association of North America 14 ;) 'i 18 LAITH B. EZZET. VICE PRESIDENT <HF&Hl Education M.B.A., Tuck School of Business Administration at Dartmouth College M.B.A., course work at the London Business School A.B., cum laude, Economics, Occidental College Professional Certification Certified Management Consultant (CMC Professional Certification) Range of Experience Mr. Ezzet's expertise lies in integrated waste management program planning and funding, procurement of solid waste services, solid waste collection operations, recycling programs, regulatory policy, service cost tracking, rate setting, landfill funding, cost-benefit analysis, efficiency studies, applied econometrics, financial and economic modeling, and statistical market research. He has been the principal consultant and project manager on solid waste engagements for more that 25 municipal agencies. Representative Procurement Engagements & Feasibility Studies Determined service levels, prepared an RFP, and evaluated proposa1s to provide exclusive residential and commercial solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal services. Evaluated proposed terms and conditions of a solid waste disposal agreement. Assisted a city to procure solid waste collection, recycling, and yardwaste collection services. Reviewed terms and conditions for a proposed commercial solid waste collection and recycling contract, and recommended improvements. Developed an RFP and draft service agreement for a municipality procuring residential solid waste collection and recycling services, greenwaste collection services, and commercial collection services. I I l. L L [; L [' Evaluated proposals to provide exclusive residential, commercial, and industrial solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal services. Evaluated proposals for non-exclusive commercial solid waste collection and recycling services. Evaluated private and public sector proposals to develop a landfill gas utilization facility. Evaluated the financial capability of three companies proposing to develop a household hazardous materials collection center. Performed a financial analysis of proposed municipal material recovery facilities ranging from 275 to 825 tons per day. Compared private versus public sector operation. Identified fundingoptions. Evaluated single versus double shift operating schedules. Performed sensitivity analyses of capital costs, O&M costs, material revenues, interest rates, operator profit, and residue disposal costs. Analyzed alternative solid waste transfer and transportation methods including direct haul, dual collection/transfer vehicles, compactors, and top loading transfer stations. 15 ;;1 13 Developed and evaluated waste diversion incentive schemes which utilized a multi-tier tipping fee structure to encourage private sector development and use of material recovery facilities to divert waste from a county's landfills. Assisted a multi-jurisdictional group representing 25 government agencies with evaluation of alternative solid waste programs and facilities over a 15 year period. Developed a comprehensive financial model to calculate the system cost of collection, hauling. processing. transfer and disposal, and evaluated financing requirements. Professional & Business History Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC, Newport Beach, California, Vice President, 1996 to present; Senior Associate, 1991 to 1995. Price Waterhouse, Newport Beach, California, Manager, 1990 to 1991; Senior Consultant,,1988 to 1990; Associate, 1987. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Branch, Los Angeles, California, Economist, 1983 to 1986. Professional Organizations California Resource Recovery Association (past Director and Chapter Treasurer) Institute of Management Consultants Resource Management Alliance Solid Waste Association of North America Southern California Waste Management Forum Articles & Speeches . "Evaluating the Privatization Decision: Myths versus Facts", presented at the 6th Annual Arizona Landfill and Solid Waste Management Seminar, Phoenix, AZ, May, 1996. . "Evaluating Financial Performance in Solid Waste Contracts", presented to SWANA, Southern California Founding Chapter, Long Beach, March 1996. . "Solid Waste Collection Programs, Rates, and Service Providers in 185 Cities", presented at SW ANA's Western Regional Symposium, May 1995. . "Privatizing Refuse Collection: How Real Are The Savings?", presented to SW ANA. Southern California Founding Chapter, October 1994. . "Public Versus Private Operation of Solid Waste Programs", presented to the California Resource Recovery Association, Santa Barbara, May 1994. . "Alternative Service Arrangements for Solid Waste Collection Programs", presented to the Solid Waste Association of North America, Lake Tahoe, May 1994 . ''Financing Strategies for Integrated Waste Management Programs: Developing Accurate Estimates of Program Costs", presented to the League of California Cities, May 1992. 16 [ - i I' I I, ! [ I' l. r [ : L l. L L ~>l 1 J JOSEPH REISDORF. PRINCIP At (AURORA ASSOCIA TESl Education B.S. Industrial Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY. Range of Experience Over eighteen years experience developing. implementing. and evaluating solid waste projects, programs, and operations. Founded Aurora Associates in 1992 to provide specialized environmental consulting services to municipalities and waste management companies. Representative Solid Waste Management Experience Evaluation of Solid Waste Programs and Operations Current activities include technical assistance to municipalities engaged in the procurement of new or expanded recycling and/ or solid waste collection services from private waste management companies. Services include: . Technical and economic evaluation of service proposals . Assistance with contract negotiations . Rate review and evaluation Solid Waste Facility Development A broad range of services has been provided to waste management companies and municipalities for the development of transfer stations, recycling centers, compost facilities, and material recovery facilities, ranging in size from 50 to 5,000 tons of daily capacity. . Feasibility analysis . Site surveys and evaluations . Facility layout and preliminary design . Complete project cost analysis . Equipment and technology evaluation . Complete project permitting Waste Management and Recycling Programs Development and implementation of recycling and source separation programs for municipalities and private companies. Services included program design, cost analysis, equipment selection, market assessment, and implementation assistance. Integrated Waste Management Planning Integrated solid waste management plans and waste generation studies were completed for over 25 cities and counties throughout California. Professional and Business History Aurora Associates, Malibu, CA, Principal Clements Engineers, Los Angeles, CA, Project Manager Energy & Solid Waste Projects, New York, NY, Project Developer Rochester District Heating Cooperative, Rochester, NY, General Manager Governor's Commission on Science & Technology, Trenton. N}, Science Advisor Technology Uti1ization Program, Rochester, NY, Project Manager Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, Industrial Engineer Other Activities Instructor - U.c. Berkeley Extension Program, for course entitled The Design and Operation of Material Recovery Facilities. 17 97 78 DAVID L. DAVIS. SENIOR ASSOCIATE IHF&H> Education B.A., Finance, California State University, Fullerton Professional Certification Certified Management Accountant Range of Experience Mr, Davis' experience includes ten years of public and private sector financial management, solid waste cost analysis and rate design, procurement of solid waste services and facilities, disposal system analysis, and waste diversion analysis. Representative Solid Waste Management Experience Served as controller for the hauling and landfill divisions of a major waste management company. Responsible for budgeting, financial reporting and analysis, cost accounting. bi11ing. collections and office administration. Served as project controller for a proposed 1500 TPD material recovery facility. Developed a computer model to estimate and analyze the total system cost (i.e., route truck, transfer, long-haul transportation, and disposal) of alternative mixes of proposed transfer and disposal facilities. Analysis included measuring the cost change between existing and various proposed landfills, transfer stations, material recovery facilities, composting facilities, and rail- haul disposal sites. Reviewed competing regional MRF development proposals, and scored each according to objective evaluation criteria. Analysis included determining the reasonableness and logical consistency of proposed cost, forecasts, and tonnage throughputs. Evaluated responses to an authority's request for proposals to provide processing, transfer, transportation, and disposal services. Included verifying the submitted information, interviewing respondents, and scoring the proposals according to objective evaluation criteria. Reviewed the rate increase request of several refuse collection, recycling and disposal companies. Evaluated the reasonableness of cost allocations and projected costs. Presented findings and recommendations to agency staff and elected officials. Articles "Cost-Based Rates: The Route to Commercial Collection Efficiency:' MSW ManalWIlent, September/October 1996. Professional and Business History Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson: Newport Beach, California, Senior Associate, 1995 to present, Associate, 1992 to 1995. City of Riverside: Riverside, California, Utilities Accounting/Finance Manager, 1991 to 1992. Waste Management, Inc.: Lancaster and Hemet, California, Controller, 1986 to 1991. 18 91 78 SCOTT HANIN. SENIOR ASSOCIATE <HF&Hl r~ , , Education Masters in Public Administration, New York University Bachelor of Arts (Political Science), University of Delaware Range of Experience Mr. Hanin's nine years of experience lies in service/program procurement, contract negotiation, solid waste franchising, program design, implementation and evaluation, integrated waste management planning, operational reviews, facility siting and project management. Representative Service ProcurementlNegotiations [' I r" r: [ r~ [ I] U [: [ r I: L . Managed development of an RFP and contract and assisted in negotiations for solid waste services for a Northern California city. . Managed development of an RFP and contract for recycling and green waste services for a Northern California city. . Managed procurement (RFP design, proposal evaluation and contract negotiation) for solid waste services for a Northern California solid waste authority. . Assisted in evaluation and negotiation of solid waste services for a Northern California city. . Designed an RFP, evaluated proposals and monitored implementation related to solid waste and yard waste collection and processing for a Bay Area city. . Reviewed and recommended improvements to eight solid waste franchise agreements. . Managed the development and implementation of a non-exclusive solid waste and recycling franchise system for a Southern California city. . Designed five RFP's for the procurement of recycling services and negotiated and received approval for eight separate recycling program contracts worth over $3 million. . Assisted in the development of an RFP, evaluation of proposals and contract for negotiations for solid waste services for two Southern California cities. . Assisted in the negotiations for two agreements for curbside recycling programs for two Northern California jurisdictions. . Prepared a disposal agreement for an Arizona city. Professional and Business History Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, Senior Associate, 9/95 to present, Associate, 4/93 to 9/95. City of Pasadena, Acting Recycling and Waste Reduction Supervisor, 9/92 to 4/93. Brown, Vence & Associates, Associate Planner II, 1/92 to 8/92. Office of the Mayor of New York City, Senior Policy Analyst/liaison, 6/90 to 12/91. New York City Department of Sanitation, Project Manager/City Planner, 6/87 to 6/90. Affiliations .. Member, Institute of Manag~t Consultants Member, California Resource Recovery Association Member, Northern California Recycling Association 19 r ~'7 18 SECI10N 5 QUALIFICATIONS We believe the team of HF&H and Aurora Associates is uniquely qualified to provide the combination of economic, engineering, and procurement expertise required to perform this engagement for the following reasons: 1) HF&H has a broad base of relevant solid waste experience as a result of our prior engagements for more than 150 California jurisdictions whom we have helped to plan, implement and monitor their solid waste programs. Our services have included program planning and funding, financial feasibility studies, rate analysis, and procurement assistance. 2) HF&H has directly related experience assisting more than 20 jurisdictions procure solid waste services through RFP preparation, proposal evaluation, and contract negotiation. 3) HF&H has directly related experience performing a wide variety of program and facility feasibility studies, including recent engagements evaluating the feasibility and necessity of transfer stations and material recovery facilities, as described in Section 6 of this proposal. 4) HF&H is familiar with the existing solid waste facilities in the region as a result of our previous engagements and on-going surveys, including our current independent research project of solid waste programs and facilities in each city within San Bernardino County. As a result, we already are familiar with many of the options in the area. 5) HF&H provides solid waste consulting services excblsively to municipal agencies in order to avoid both real and apparent conflicts of interest that may arise in firms that attempt to serve both the public and private sectors. We believe this independence is particularly important for facility planning, objective proposal evaluation, and effective negotiations. Additionally, our municipal focus ensures that we are aware of the unique needs of public officials. 6) We have assigned our most senior staff to this engagement. Each of our proposed consultants has at least 9 years of individual solid waste experience in local government, consulting, and the solid waste industry. Our team of consultants includes engineers, economists, accountants, and public policy specialists who collectively bring approximately 60 years of practical solid waste experience to this engagement. 7) Both HF&H and Aurora have local offices in Southern California, assuring that key staff are readily available to participate in meetings on short notice, without incurring significant travel costs, 20 :3'7 78 A complete description of HF&H's qualifications and a summary of our solid waste experience is included in the appendix at the end of this proposal. A summary of the experience of our engineering subcontractor, Aurora Associates, is provided on the pages that follow. Aurora Associates r-' Aurora Associates is an environmental consulting and project development firm. The founders of the firm have broad-based technical backgrounds with over twenty- eight years of combined work experience for private industry, major consulting firms, and government. r' I Aurora Associates provides the following types of professional services: I [ I: l: [: [ r I: I: . Compliance with environmental laws and regulations. . Assistance to local governments for the procurement of new or expanded solid waste facilities and collection and recycling services - including development of RFPs and bid documents, evaluation of technical and cost proposals, and technical support during contract negotiations. . Design, development, and permitting of solid waste, composting, and material handling and processing facilities. . Design and implementation of waste diversion programs. . Integrated waste management planning and compliance documents; waste generation, characterization, and diversion studies; and waste audits. . Cost analysis of rates for solid waste operations and programs. r I Solid Waste Facility Development A broad scope of services has been provided to municipalities and project developers for the development of material recovery facilities, transfer stations, compost facilities, and transformation facilities. Our solid waste facility development services include: . Siting surveys and evaluations. . Concept development and critical flaw analysis. . Facility layout and preliminary design. · Equipment specification. . Complete project permitting with local, regional, and state agencies. · Feasibility and cost analysis. 21 I , , :)'7 7 J INTEGRATED MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITIES & TRANSFER STATIONS Facth Tons Per Day 6,000 5,000 5,000 250 1,500 1,500 1,500 550 1,000 1,000 N/A Cit of Vernon San Bernardino Coun Eastern San Gabriel Valle Paradise, California Ci of Ventura Southern Oran e Count Ci of Oran e Ci of Paramount Western San Gabriel Valley Northern Santa Barbara County Transfer station consolidation lan, Modoc County . . Y ':1" >!r ...",'DD 0 , 0 ~~&::,\n1~rJ.__O...~&+;@:r~,,,,I~D1i".'j;/-: 650 400 100 500 Facility Siting Surveys A survey and evaluation of sites in Los Angeles, Orange, and Northern San Diego County was conducted to identify potential locations for waste transfer stations and rail car loading yards. The evaluation included the preparation of preliminary site layouts and an analysis of the "permitability" of specific sites. Economic & Technical Evaluations As cities strive to control the cost and improve the level of service of the solid waste collection and recycling services available to their citizens and businesses, many are soliciting proposals for new or expanded services from private waste management companies. We have assisted cities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties to achieve these objectives by providing the following types of services: . Development of Requests for Proposals or other bid documents. . Evaluation of technical and cost proposals from solid waste service providers. . Analysis of the existing or proposed service rates for various types of waste collection and recycling programs. . Technical support for contract negotiations. 22 ::i '; 7 j Program Implementation [' Aurora Associates has developed and implemented various location-specific recycling and material recovery programs. Program development services have included identification of markets, selection of materials for recycling, identification of collection systems and equipment, cost analysis, and establishment of monitoring and reporting procedures. Regulatory Compliance and Permitting r I [' I' I I Aurora Associates has extensive experience with the acquisition of permits and preparation of environmental documentation for solid waste facilities, industrial plants, and multi-use commercial projects. The classifications of permits acquired for clients include the following: I I I: L [: r r l: l: I' . Conditional use permits and other local land use entitlements. . Special permits, zone variances, and Specific Plans. . Solid Waste Facility Permits (transfer stations, composting facilities, MRFs). . Findings of Consistency with General Plans. . Initial Studies and Mitigation Measure Monitoring Programs. . Preliminary air quality impact analyses and findings of consistency with regional air quality management plans. . National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permits (NPDES), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans. . Army Corps of Engineers wetlands permits. In the State of California, our staff has worked with the permitting and environmental review staffs of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, as well as the Local Enforcement Agencies throughout Southern California. Integrated Waste Management Planning To help California agencies comply with the requirements of AB 939, Aurora Associates has been providing a variety of program planning, evaluation, and monitoring services. Aurora Associates is functioning as the contract staff for the Regional Waste Management Authority in Northern California, and is responsible for ensuring that the Authority's AB 939-related requirements are met. The members of Aurora Associates prepared all or major parts of over 35 Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, Waste Generation Studies, and Non-disposal Facility Elements for jurisdictions throughout California. 23 ..,'1 7:} SECTION 6 RELATED EXPERIENCE The table below describes a sample of HF&H's engagements involving feasibility studies and procurement assistance. A complete list of all HF&H solid waste engagements is provided in the Solid Waste Experience Summary in the appendix. HF&FI <:iIENj:;t',j;; City of Glendale, CA Mr. Rudy Umana Recycling Coordinator 818/548-3916 Mr. Tom Brady Integrated Waste Planner 818/548-3916 City of Beverly Hills Mr. Joseph Delaney Solid Waste Division to Accept L.A. Waste (Now with the City of Santa Monica) Telephone at Santa Monica: 310/458-8554 Waste Diversion Feasibili Stud (1996) Per ormed a Waste Diversion Feasibility Study to evaluate the feasibility and costs of achieving the 50% diversion goal without developing its own MRF. Result: The City has ordered equipment to implement the first phase of the recommended programs to achieve 50% diversion without a MRF. Study Period: Four months MRF Feasibility Study (1993) Assisted the City as a sub-consultant in the performance of a MRF feasibility study. Performed a financial analysis of five alternative scenarios with various facility sizes and material recovery capability, including public versus private operation for each of the scenarios, We also investigated various financing methods available for the MRFs. Result: See above Waste Diversion Feasibility Study Stud Period: Seven months Transfer Station Study (1995) Evaluated the costs of alternative solid waste collection, transfer, and transport methods, including expansion of the City's existing facility as a regional transfer station, a new top loading transfer station, use of other cities' transfer stations, and direct haul using dual trailers (POD system). ~: The City is considering redevelopment of its transfer station property. . Study Period: Four months 24 ~%'#'TAFro ie:.c;:,. ,." ,.$"Z':',{.",~,....~"~,,,,, Ezzet Davis Ezzet Davis Hilton Ezzet I I I I I, l L L L T . . "77) ::I " HF&H CLIENT ...... '.. -;---'- .........,; ENGAGmdENT.:p,:;v'-;;:'--:' STAFF '" ....;;';, . .,:'. /,....'........:'1/ Riverside County Cooperative Waste Manaj1;ement Study Hilton (Svstem Cost Study, 1995) Ezzet Mr. Robert Nelson Conducted a comprehensive evaluation of solid waste Davis Waste Resources processing, transfer and disposal options for the 24 Management District cities and unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including existing and proposed public and private 909/275-1399 facilities both within the outside the County. Result: The County is developing a transfer station at Agua Mansa, and the desert cities are in contract negotiations with vendors for a MRF /transfer station in the Mid-Coachella Valley. Studll Period: 9 months Western Ventura County Procurement Assistance (1993) Davis MRF Development Assisted the West Ventura County cities in reviewing Management Committee two proposals for "best and final offers" for the construction and operation of a regional material Mr. Arnold Dowdy recovery facility. City Manager City of Santa Paula Result: Both proposals contained flaws; one proponent (BLT) rectified the flaw and constructed its facility. 805/525-4478 Studll Period: 6 months City of San Procurement Assistance (1989) Hilton Buenaventura Developed and negotiated a franchise agreement for the processing of mixed recyclables, and recyclable-rich Mr. Terry Adelman commercial collections through an !Pc. Director of Finance Result: FlICility was subsequently constructed and is 805/654-7812 operational. Central Contra Costa MRFrrransfer Station Feasibility Study (1990) Hilton Sanitary District Prepared a financial feasibility study for a publicly- Mr. Paul Morsen owned materials recovery facility and transfer station. Asst. General Manager Result: The District decided not to develop a facility. 510/689-3890 City of Lake Forest Procurement Assistance (1996) Hilton Prepared a Request for Proposals, evaluated proposals, Ezzet Mr. Bob Woodings and assisted in negotiation of a service agreement for Hanin Director of Public Works solid waste collection, recycling, processing, and yardwaste collection services. 714/707-5583 ~: The City executed a seruice agreement effective September 1996, resulting in a 25% reduction in seruice costs. Studll Period: Seven months 25 ~.; 7:3 ~ . HF&z:H CLIENT ENGAGEMENT STAFF City of Indian Wells Procurement Assistance (1996) Hilton Assisting the City in preparation of an RFP, draft Ezzet Mr. George Watts agreement, and evaluation of proposals to provide Hanin City Manager solid waste collection and recycling services. 619/776-0222 ~: RFP released in September 1996 Studv Period: In process South Bayside Transfer Transfer Station & MRF Acquisition Feasibility Hilton Station Authority Study (1996) Evaluating the feasibility of the SBTSA acquiring the Mr. Michael Garvey San Carlos Transfer Station and San Mateo Recyclery, City Manager owned by BPI, estimating the purchase price in City of San Carlos accordance with the contract, and projecting operating results and cost savings to the Authority. The study 415/593-8011 also includes the identification and evaluation of alternative disposal facilities in the SBTSA service area as well as a discussion and evaluation of financing opportunities available to the Authority. Study Period: In process MRF Procurement Assistance (1992) Assisted the Authority in the negotiation of a Material Recovery Facility contract with BPI. Hilton Result: Avreement was executed and facility is operatinv. San Diego North County Solid Waste Facility Alternatives Study (1991) Hilton Cities Assisted several cities located in North San Diego Ezzet County by identifying and evaluating alternative waste Mr. Warren H. Shafer diversion and disposal alternatives, including City Manager composting. materials recovery facilities, transfer City of Encinitas stations, and landfills. Note: Mr. Shafer is no Result: Based on our findings that more cost effective longer with the City alternatives to the County system were under development, the cities declined to enter into flaw control agreements with the County. Studll Period: Five months Sedona, Arizona Procurement Assistance (1996) Hilton Assisted the City with evaluation of the terms and Ezzet Mr. Tom Shafer conditions of a proposed disposal agreement. Hanin Assistant City Manager Result: The City is evaluating two landfill options. 520/282-1154 Studll Period: One month 26 ';) >7 1:3 ' The table below describes several MRF and transfer station engagements performed by our engineering subcontractor, Aurora Associates. 1'- I , AURo.RA CLIENT- " k".,',:,',.., -','.C,', ,',',.',..' ,:..' ", ,. ',.""".,; Gold Coast Recycling, Inc. [ I ! [ r [ I L l: L [ I: r L r Chris Webb Project Manager 805/642-9236 Central Coast Recycling, Inc. Pat Higgins CEO 805/922-2121 City of San Marcos Mr. Jerry Backoff Planning Director 619/744-1050 City of San Marcos Mr. Jerry Backoff Planning Director 619/744-1050 Gold Coast Recyclinp; Facility Expansion, Ventura, California Assisting with facility layout and design, preparation of facility traffic and air quality impact analysis, development of detailed project description and operations plan, management of land use permitting process, preparation of detailed operations plans and documentation to support the solid waste facility permitting process, consultation to the project design and construction team. Result: Facility design and pennitting is complete. Construction start is scheduled for September 1996. Stud Period: In rocess Los Padres Resource Recovery Park, Guadalupe, California Development of project scope and outline, assistance with the development of the facility and site layout, management and technical support during the environmental review process, preparation of traffic and air quality impact analysis, preparation of detailed documentation of facility operations to support the solid waste facility permitting process, and assistance to the construction and design team. Result: Preliminary project design and environmental assessment is complete. Final design and permitting expected by November 1996. Stud Period: In rocess Mashburn Material Recovery Facility Technical assistance to the City during the preparation of the environmental documentation for the project. Result: Preliminary project scoping and environmental assessment is complete. Project currently on hold pending decision from developer. Stud Period: 4 months Liberty Recyclinp; Facility - Monthlv Inspections Technical consultant to the City for regular inspections of the recycling facility. Result: Project work and facility compliance monitoring is on-going through May 1997 27 ~'l 7 J AURORA CLIENT ENGAGEMENT"'""'" ''<'ie'"~, '\ _ ,- ,,- :;?(~t_"Ji'.'\" /~:<:';,'(:-_: Paradise Solid Waste PSWS Material Recovery Facility & Transfer Station, Paradise, Systems California Project feasibility and cost analysis, siting analysis, equipment William Mannel specification, site and facility layout, development of the President detailed project description, and management of the land use planning process, 916/877-2777 Result; Project design and permitting is complete. Developer currently arranging project financing. Sludl/ Period; 9 months Servcon-Vernon, Inc. Vernon Material Recovery Facility & Transfer Station, Vernon, California Mr. Jerry Riessen Development of a facility and site layout, specification of the President equipment requirements and material handling procedures, facility cost analysis, and management of the land use permitting 415/391-2833 process. Result; Project preliminary design, cost analysis, and environmental review is complete. Developer is currently arranging financing. S tudl/ Period: 6 months 28 I , [' [' f' [ [ r r I: [; Ii [] [: L l !O ::d '13 ~ SECTION 7 PROJECf SCHEDULE We have prepared the following schedule based on the City's goal to execute a vendor agreement by June 30,1996. However, based on our prior experience, we believe an additional 60 to 90 days may be necessary for City staff and the public to have adequate time for the review process and to provide the vendors with additional time to prepare their proposals. Nevertheless, we are prepared to complete the engagement as shown below, assuming the City and vendors meet their milestones, and assuming there are no significant obstacles during final negotiations. (Note: specific dates would need to be modified to conform to scheduling of City Council meetings.) 1. PerIonn Feasibility Studv and Eslabllsh Design Parameters a Gather and review data b. Prepare model Co Analyze results/develop findings d. Prepare Draft Feasibility Report a City reviews Draft Report f. Prepare Final Feasibility Report g. City makes goIno go decisiOI1 (CounciQ 2. Preoare RFP Packaae a Prepare RFP and Draft Agreement b. Couool approves RFP package Co Vendors subm~ proposals 3. EvaIuate~".~.k.o.::1..6 a Evaluate proposals b. Document results c. Interview proposersllinalize evaluation d. Council selects vendor(s) 4. Negotiate Agreement a Negotiations b. Present Agreement to Council Co Execute Agreement 5 6 7 29 30 days 1 monI1 30 days 1.5 months 30 days 2 months 15 days 2.5 months 7 days 2.75 7 days 3 months 2116 15 days 3.5 months 8 30 days 4.5 months 7 days 4.75 men 30 days 5.75 mon 15days 7.5months 7 days 7.75 mon 7 days 8 months -.;'{ 73 SECfION 8 COST Please refer to the separate sealed envelope labeled "Project Costs". SECTION 9 WRITING SAMPLE We have included one copy our Transfer Station Study for the City of Beverly Hills with the original copy of our proposal. This is a recent example of one of our feasibility studies. If requested, we would also be pleased to provide an example of an RFP and Agreement as an example of our procurement deliverables. SECTION 10 RESULTS OF PREVIOUS WORK We have described the results for each engagement covered in Section 6 "Related Experience", below each citation in that section. 30 :;'1 7 J r' I... I f' I AmNmX HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON. LLC I l [ [ I I I I' l. L Statement of Qualifications TABLE OF CONTENTS Solid Waste Oients Summary of Solid Waste Experience 1 2-3 4-14 Services I ! 10 Hilton Famkopf .. Hobaon, LLC Ie i I f' r r r r [' I ( : L I: l' l. I: I' I , I. ~'l '13 =={; stRVitt~1 ;. _'.> _~~;,,,_,~,_ ,_;__i::J,/;~_i Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson provides the services listed below to the following clients: . State and local governments . Solid waste franchising agencies . Water and wastewater utilities . Special districts . Cable television franchising agencies RATE SETTING H:\A:\:CIAL 1'1. \:\:-;I:\C; Revenue requirement analysis Cost of service allocations Rate structure design Capacity charge studies Rate modeling Marginal pricing studies Sensitivity analyses Reclaimed water pricing Conservation pricing Revenue programs Financial master plans Financial feasibility studies Benefit-<:ost analyses Privatization studies Working capital management Capital asset planning Budgeting and control analysis Capital program financing options NEGO f1ATIO" & REG1JLA lORY SLTI'OR r RLSOL RCL \I.\N .\C;I \11 :\T Rate case analysis Rate negotiations Inter-agency coordination Utigation consulting Expert witness testimony Regulatory compliance audits Solid waste franchise development Collection, recycling, processing, and development service contract negotiations Contract negotiations for solid waste collection, recycling, processing, and development services Conservation programs Resource planning and management Urban water management plans Valuations and appraisals Depreciation studies' Facilities renewal and replacement programs Fixed asset management PLRIOR:\L\:\CE \L\NACE\IE:\:T , Organization studies Management reviews Performance audits Compensation reviews HUlon Famkopf Ie Hobson, LLC ;.= .1. ~:i'l 7:3 =9 SOLIDWASTECLIENTS;~. I Alameda County Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee City of Alameda City of Uvermore City of Piedmont City of Dublin City of Hayward City of Fremont City of Union City Castro Valley Sanitary District City of Newark City of Emeryville City of Albany City of Oakland Oro Lorna Sanitary District Alameda County Solid Waste Authority City of Albany City of Azusa City of Beverly Hills City of Brentwood City of Burbank City of Burlingame City of Canyon Lake City of Carlsbad City of Carpinteria City of Cerritos Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa Town of Danville City of Lafayette Town of Moraga City of Orinda City of San Ramon City of Walnut Creek City Dana Point Delta Diablo Sanitation District City of Downey City of Dublin County of El Dorado City of Encinitas City of Foster City City of Fremont City of Glendale, Arizona City of Glendale, California City of Hercules Town of Hillsborough City of Indian Wells City of Laguna Niguel City of Lake Forest Las Gallinas Sanitary District City of Larkspur City of Uvermore City of Long Beach Town of Los Altos Hills County of Marin City of Martinez County of Mendocino City of Menlo Park City of Modesto County of Merced City of Millbrae City of Montclair Cities of Morgan Hill/Gilroy City of Newark Novato Sanitary District City of Oakland City of Ojai County of Orange City of Pasadena City of Portland, Oregon City of Finole City of Poway City of Redondo Beach [ I l. .2. Hnton Famkopf It Hobson, LLC ;.= 9'1 78 ==9 SOLIDWAS1]...qLiMS,:),\;;~ r , I Riverside County Western Riverside Council of Govts. Coachella Valley Association of Govts. Waste Resources Management District Town of Ross Ross Valley Sanitary District County of San Bemardino City of San Bruno City of San Buenaventura City of San Carlos City of San Clemente City of San Jose City of San Juan Capistrano City of San Mateo County of San Mateo City of San Ramon City of San Rafael City and County of San Francisco San Diego North County Cities JP A City of Carlsbad City of Del Mar City of Encinitas City of Escondido City of Oceanside City of Poway City of Solana Beach City of Vista City of Santa Ana County of Santa Barbara City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Rosa City of Saratoga City of Sedona, Arizona South Bayside Transfer Station Authority Town of Atherton City of Belmont City of Burlingame City of East Palo Alto City of Foster City [' I [' l' r . [' I' (' l. l: r L L Town of Hillsborough City of Menlo Park West Bay Sanitary District City of San Mateo City of Redwood City San Mateo County City of San Carlos City of South San Francisco City of Sunnyvale City of Thousand Oaks City of Torrance Tri-City Waste Management Committee City of Union City City of Walnut Creek West Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority City of Hercules City of Pinole City of Richmond City of San Pablo West Valley Cities (Santa Gara County) City of Campbell Town of Los Gatos City of Monte Sereno County of Santa Clara City of Saratoga Western Ventura County MRF Development Management Committee City of Camarillo City of Fillmore City of Ojai City of Oxnard City of Port Hueneme City of Santa Paula City of Ventura County of Ventura -3- Hnlon Famkopf Ie Hobson, LLC '.= 1'< r [' [' r r [' I' I r L r r L r: ! , , . 91 78 =9 SUM'MA1U'(),ESQI:JQJf.t,1S:rn ExeE'Rl.EN:~13ltll' SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, RECYCLING, TRANSFER, PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL RATE REVIEWS (Continued) I" <'.;:~?:~~~i~~$~t!Ql~{s)~~~I~~_~~_~1 Central Contra Costa 1985 Analyzed the rate request of Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal Sanitary District Company for collection and disposal services. 1989 Analyzed the rate increase request of Valley Waste Management which provides collection and disposal services. 1994 Analyzed the rate increase request of Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal which provide collection and disposal services. City of Downey 1994 Performed a rate study to determine the cost for the City's franchised hauler to add city-wide curbside recycling and yard waste collection services. City of Glendale, Arizona 1991 Estimated residential and commercial refuse collection rates for the City's Sanitation Enterprise Fund. 1994 Assisted the City with analysis of its budget request for fisca1 1994-95. City of Glendale, California 1992 Performed a cost of service study of automated residential refuse collection for 64 and 100 gallon containers, and commercia1 refuse collection of one-, two-, and three-cubic yard bins. City of Long Beach 1992 Performed a cost of service study of municipal residential and commercial collection and disposal costs. City of Mil/brae 1992 Reviewed the residentiaL commercial and recycling services rate application submitted by South San Francisco Scavenger Company, 1994 Assisted the City by reviewing the rate increase request of South San Francisco ScavenKl!r Company. City of Morgan Hill 1994 Performed a review of a rate application of South Valley Disposal 1995 for an increase in solid waste collection rates. . City of Pacifica 1995 Assisted the City by reviewing Coastside Company's application for a rate increase. Novato Sanitary District 1990 Reviewed the rate application submitted by Novato Sanitary 1991 Disposal Company for solid waste collection and disposal services. Hilton Famkopf Ie Hobson, LLC ;.= As of AUj1;USt 1996 -5- 97 75 =9 ;SuMMARX"QE$:Cli.mj&4$m..tx'.1?E~&G~.~' SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, RECYCLING, TRANSFER, PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL RATE REVIEWS (Continued) v.. . ,. "Mmct" ". '~""'M'''41!.'I'f1:ll!'J "D"''''''iN'I'% ..}~,:~'.-;;;r:"-?z:>::,," l,~~JJ-),;H\:?:_:'_,~fk;t; <~".,~,Je\s,,:~\ Quad Cities In Process Performing a rate audit of solid waste collection and disposal costs, and verifyinK fees remitted by SolaK Disposal to the cities. City of Redondo Beach 1994 City of San Bruno 1990 1995 Performed a rate study and comprehensive performance review of services provided by the City's franchised hauler, Including: . the reasonableness of existing rates; . verification of fees paid by the hauler to the City; . verification that customers were charged in accordance with the City's approved rate schedule; · verification that services were provided in accordance with the franchise agreement; . review of contract terms and conditions; and, . evaluation of customer complaints. Reviewed the Rate Application submitted by San Bruno Garbage Company (a subsidiary of Noreal Solid Waste Management Systems, Inc.) for collection and disposal, recycling, and household hazardous waste services. City of San Buenaventura 1989-1995 Reviewed the residential collection and recycling rate requests filed by E. J. Harrison & Sons and Ventura Rubbish. 1992 Performed a cost of service study of commercial solid waste collection and disposal services for each customer classification. City and County of San Francisco 1990 1991 Assisted in the review of Sunset Scavenger Company, Golden Gate Disposal Company, and Sanitary Fill Company's rate request 1991 Developed the conceptual design for a productivity monitoring system for collection, transfer and recycling activities and evaluated its implementation. 1995 Updated the productivity monitoring system and analyzed the impact of the Company's Employee Stock Ownership PIan. City of San Rafael 1994 City of San Ramon 1988 County of Santa Barbara 1988 Assisted the City by reviewing the application for a rate increase of Marin Sanitary Service. Reviewed the rate application filed by Valley Waste ManaKement, Inc. for collection and disposal services. Performed a cost of service analysis of Browning-Ferris Industries, Olannel Disposal, Health Sanitation, Marborg Disposal, and Suburban Disposal This residential and commercial study evaluated the cost for each company to service each customer clas- sification. As of AUKUSt 1996 -6- HUlon Famkopf Ie Hobson, LLC '.= :i " 7 S 1 I =9 SuMMARYQ~;~.Qtm;MrA,~1FEX1JtJ<<~N~~'~l&tl r' , SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, RECYCLING, TRANSfER, PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL RATE REVIEWS (Continued) t,,~.. ' ':4Clienf:,';~)tl~;;II~pa(~(8';~!!;;~\~~l.i~f ,';i~'\~"QJt' City of Santa Clarita 1992 Reviewed the cost of semi-automated residential single family services and multi-family bin services of Atlas Refuse Removal Co., Santa Oarita Disposal and Western Waste. Recommended rates for adoption by the City Council. Bvaluatedalternative service arrangements for commercial collection. . r' n n r (] r; [; [1 1993 Reviewed the cost of providing bin service and calculated minimum and maximum rates for the City's competitive permit system. City of Santa Rosa 1985 South Bayside Transfer Station Authority <A joint powers authority composed of 9 cities) 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Reviewed the rate request filed by Empire Waste which provided collection and disposal services under a~ent with the City. Analyzed Browning-Ferris Industries of San Mateo County's application for collection, recycling, processing and transfer station rates in accordance with the rate review procedures developed by HF&H staff in 1988. City of South San Francisco 1992 City of Sunnyvale 1993 Performed a review of the residential, commercial and recycling services rate application submitted by South San Francisco Scaven~r Company. [1 1992 Conducted a cost-of-service study of residential and commercial service. City of Thousand Oaks n u u (' ... Assisted the City in performing a review of Valley Disposal, Newberry Disposal, G.!. Rubbish, and Block Disposal's request for residential and commercial solid waste collection and disposal rate increases. City of Union City 1995 City of Vallejo 1995 City of Walnut Creek 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 [j Assisting the City by reviewing the current collection costs / rates for Tri-Ced Community RecyclinF;. Conducted a performance audit of Vallejo Garbage Service (Norcal) including an evaluation of management and operational productivity. Reviewed the rate application submitted by Valley Waste Management, Inc., for residential and commercial solid waste collection and disposal services. n As of AUF;USt 1996 -7- Hilton Famkopf It Hobson, LLC ;.= ~'i 7 d =={ ,5' . ......:OFSOLW:'\4.S.. . IiXRt' -'Ni:, "'l"1':i- . U1WMAR.)j,... , .,.... ." ..JY: ..]A, ..,I@,_~, I SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, RECYCLING, TRANSFER, PROCI:SSlNG AND DISPOSAL RATE REVIEWS (Continued) [""'. '.'"".).'~"!i!I~""._' " "m"D"'t''''''[I. ~/.' "I'~'."" ',' "g., .'....~....-_'. . """'>"",~""Cllen'iW. . i( aets).' ,;.,'" ..' ""'pNo.. . ')':kr:'~'~,'V'<"",,, .,;",,,.',,., ,- .,' . .,""~..~.., " . . West Valley Cities 1993 Performed a management and operations review of Green Valley Disposal Company. RECYCLING City of Albany 1992 Evaluated the City's curbside residential recycling collection pr~am costs and revenues for reasonableness. 1989 Evaluated alternative rate structures designed to encourage waste reduction and recycling. Developed a multiple rate structure financial model. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District City of Dublin 1991 Evaluated alternative rate structures designed to encourage waste reduction and recycling, Developed a multiple rate structure financial model. City of Menlo Park 1996 Performed a Waste Diversion Feasibility Study to evaluate the fea- sibility and costs of achieving the 50% diverion goal without using aMRF. 1991 Evaluated alternative rate structures designed to encourage waste reduction and recycling. Developed a multiple rate structure financial model. 1992 Developed a uniform residential rate structure that was adopted by the City Council. 1994 Analyzed alternative commercial/industrial recycling rate structures and recommended structures for implementation. City of Glendale, CA City of Liverman City of Mountain View South Bayside Transftr Station Authority (A joint powers authority composed of 9 cities) 1990 Analyzed Browning-Ferris Industries of San Mateo County's 1991 application for curbside recycling and material recovery services. 1992 1993 For the cities of San Carlos, Belmont, Redwood City, Burlingame, and San Mateo, we developed a uniform solid waste rate structure for either immediate implementation or a three-year phased approach. 1995 Analyzing the approach and financial impact of the implementation of yard waste collection by the current hauler. City of Thousand Oaks 1991 Evaluated the City's pilot curbside recycling and drop-off pr~am costs. City of Walnut Creek 1993 Assisted the City by reviewing Pacific Rim's curbside recycling rates. As of Au~t 1996 -8- Hilton Pamkopf It Hobson, LLC '.= :;1 18 =9 SUMMARYOE'~$Q';m~WA.$ro;~KBtI@li~~;1 PROCESSING l' I I' [' I' I I I I r: r: L r L [: L '0' "'<~ "'''''~1I ,,.. '( ~41 . . lent:'l,~~'t;\~ ',;:;::< ,'Date s,' City of Carlsbad 1992 Review of a site for use as a material recovery and transfer station. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 1990 Delta Diablo Sanitation District 1993 City of Glendale, Californill 1993 City of San Buenaventura 1989 Western Ventura County MRF Development Management Committee 1993 Prepared a financial feasibility study for a municipal-owned materials recovery and transfer station including: . Projecting packaging, waste composition and recycling trends; . Projecting waste stream composition and volume for 20 years; . Evaluating alternative transfer station designs; . Evaluating alternative materials recovery facility designs; . Developing a conceptual design; . Estimating construction and equipment costs and financing; . Projecting the financial results of operation for 20 years; and, . Projecting processinp; rates. Performed a financial evaluation of a District proposed transfer and material recovery facility to that proposed by Waste Manap;ement, Inc. Assisted the City as a sub-consultant in the performance of a MRF feasibility study. Our role was to provide the financial analysis of five alternative scenarios, including public versus private operation for each of the scenarios. We also investigated various financing methods available for MRFs. Developed and negotiated a franchise agreement for the processing of mixed recyclables, and recyclable-rich commercial collections throup;h an IPC. , Assisted the West Venlura County cities in reviewing two proposals for the construction and operation of a regional material recovery facility. WASTE-TO-ENERGY AND METHANE GAS RECOV[J{Y City of Glendale, California County of Santa Barbara 1991 1995 Tri-City Waste Management Commiu<< 1986 1987 Reviewed and evaluated private and public sector proposals to develop a system to utilize landfill gas at the City's power plant Evaluated the financial impacts of a developer's proposed landfill gas-to-enerlW project at the County's landfill. Performed a review of the projected results of operations of a 480 tons per day waste-to-energy facility, revised the projections, prepared projected results of operations for landfill and transfer station alternatives, and performed a comparative analysis on a net present value basis. As of August 1996 -9- Hnton Pamkopf Ie Hobson, LLC '.= 97 78 =9 SUMMARYQK5Q4ij,iY4S~Exe~R.I~NQt;;~ ';,1 DISPOSAL I.','" / 'ct' ""..t""', ',""':"""', , ";!t"W"D",','%t'''''7,'<~'~1 ',",",""',"",r,'t,"",', "W'A~~,)'~,. ,',' ""~'"""',",llIM, ',,~.:,";~, '~"l",:t","i~;' . . ....... .. :: ',ten /<~1f';~~JbJr:E;, ~~.~\fjli;;, :.?,"?<;:~'-";:'~:~~:~c:;.<0~.~;~~}~i~,~CQ. ,,~,~,~~".~~~';;~'-:s#:~k*~h;;' Alameda County Joint Refuse 1992 Performed an analysis of the private landfill operator's request for Rate Review Committee reimbursement for landfill closure/post-closure costs. Analysis (A joint powers authority includes review of cost estimates for reasonableness selection of c.omposed of 13 jurisdic- the most appropriate financial assurance mech~, and tions) development of a methodology for allocation of costs to participating agencies, 1993 Assisted in negotiations with the private landfill operator regarding the allowance of closure/post-closure costs in the re~ated collection rates. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 1985 1987 City of Glendale, Arizona 1991 City of Livermore 1990 1991 Analyzed the rate increase at Acme Landfill resulting from the effects of "Subchapter 15". Developed a conceptual funding methodology for the Landfill Enterprise Fund to estimate the life cycle cost of landfill site acquisition, operations, closure and post-closure monitorinK. Reviewed the landfill rate request by BFI for the Vasco Road Landfill. 1993 Negotiated with BFI for long-term disposal capacity at its Vasco Road Landfill. County of Merced 1991 City of Ojai 1993 County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department 1993 Performed a financial projection and program analysis of the solid waste enterprise. Project activities included: . Prepared a five year financial model; . Evaluated long-term financing alternatives; . Evaluated alternative rate schedules; . Evaluated alternative landfill closure and post;:\osure financing methods; and . Reviewed the organization and administrative structure of the enterprise. Assisted the City in performing a financial analysis of the Landfill Operating Agreement being negotiated between the County of Ventura and the private landfill proponent Served as the financial advisor to the Integrated Waste Management Department Developed a life-cycle landfill pricing model, recommended long-term funding strategies, and evaluated the cost effectiveness of alternative disposal systems. 1993 Performed a cash flow analysis and debt service coverage analysis related to a proposed $100 million bond refundinK. As of AUKUSt 1996 -10- Hnlon Pamkopf Ie Hobson, LLC ;.= i , f' I [" f' f' (' [ " I" L r I: [: r l: L I. ~ 'j '1 d =9 Sll.MMAR'XcQ~,"SQtIQ.;W.A~ro.p,tRgm~e~;~ DISPOSAL (Continued) 1.;,\i.........~.\yOienE~:'.~~,:P!\t~(~):II;(;\~~~~!~V~~~gt~~1 Riverside County 1995 Conducted a comprehensive evaluation of solid waste processing, transfer and disposal options for the 24 cities and unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including existing and proposed facili. ties both within and outside the County. Developed financing plans for the closure and post-closure maintenance of the County's four existing landfills, as well as for the development of a new regiona1landfilL County of Santa Barbara 1988 City of Walnut Creek Evaluated the cost of alternative disposal options including the costs of transfer station operations, hauling and disposal at alternative landfill sites. 1988 West Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority Reviewed the rate application of Richmond Sanitary Service for costs of closure and post-closure maintenance, and regulation of the West Contra Costa Sanitary LandfilL 1986 1995 NEGOTlATlON/I'ROCURI::\([ N r City of Albany Assisted the City in the preparation of a Request for Proposals for recycling services. 1995 Assisted the City in the development of a new curbside recycling services aRft'eD\enl 1994 City of Beverly Hills Performed an evaluation of proposals submitted by seven private haulers and the City's Solid Waste Division to provide commercial solid waste collection and recycling services, and roll- off box collection services. 1994 . Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Assisted the Authority in the negotiation of a 20% reduction in overall solid waste rates with Valley Waste Management. 1994 Prepared a Request for Proposals and draft franchise agreement for selection of future solid waste franchises. 1994 1995 Performing an evaluation of proposals received in response to the prior issuance of a Request for Proposals. . City of Cerritos Evaluated proposals submitted by four companies to provide ex- clusive residential and commercial solid waste collection, recy- clinR, and disposal services. 1995 City of Dublin Assisting the City by developing a Request for Proposals and draft franchise agreement for solid waste services. 1995 Assisting the City in solid waste franchise negotiations with Livermore Dublin Disposal, the current service provider. 1994 Hilton Pamkopf Ie Hobson, LLC ;8= As of Au~t 1996 -11. ,----- ~i 'ld =9 SUMMARYOF,SOLmW4ST,E,EXJJERIENC~;~>;~1 NEGOTIATION & PROCUREMENT (Continued) 'F:~;'f!'J;'i;>II;!Da.ie(s);~1 ~~~;~\'\!J1'1~)tit~~ ;:a;D~cli'f.i91'l1J1"." 1991 Assisted the City by preparing a Request for Proposa1, Scope of Services, and Draft Franchise Agreement. Assisted the City in the selection of a contractor and negotiation of the Final Franchise AKfeE!II\ent. In Process Assisting the City in preparation of an RFP, draft agreement, and evaluation of proposals to provide solid waste collection and recy- clinK services. . Client City of Encinitas City of Indian Wells 1996 Assisted the City in procurement of exclusive residential and com- mercial solid waste collection, recycling, and yardwaste collection services by developing service recommendations, preparing a Re- quest for Proposals, and evaluatinK proposals from six vendors. City of Lake Forest City of Livermore 1992 Assisted the City in re-negotiating its disposal contract with BFI at the Vasco Road landfilL 1993 Assisted the City in negotiating a solid waste and recycling services franchise agreement with Livermore Dublin Disposal Company, City of Los Altos Hills 1994 Assisted the City by reviewing and making recommendations for improvements to the City's solid waste agreement City of Millbrae 1994 City of Montclair 1994 City of Portland 1991 City of Portola Valley 1994 1995 Assisted the City in negotiating a solid waste and recycling services franchise agreement with South San Francisco Scavenger Company. Assisted the City by reviewing their current solid waste agreement and drafting an updated solid waste franchise aKfeE!II\ent. Performed a review of the City's draft collection and disposal contract and made recommendations to strengthen its terms and agreements. Surveyed state and local jurisdictions that regulate solid waste profits with an operatinl/; ratio. City of Po way 1992 Assisted the City in solid waste franchise negotiations and in the preparation of a Request for Proposal for solid waste services. , City and County of San Francisco 1992 Assisted City staff with development of a procurement strategy for selecting a franchise hauler to provide refuse collection, curbside recyclinK, and yard waste collection services. Developed solid waste collection and disposal permit procedures for federal lands. 1995 Assisting the City in the procurement of long-term disposal capacity. As of AUKUSt 1996 -12- Hnton Famkopf Ie Hobson, LLC ;8= ~ , , r' 97 75 ==9 SUMMARXJlfSQLm;Wi1STE,~XRE;.({{F.NQE,~';,~~.~ NEGOTIATION & PROCUREMENT (Continued) I ,,' , "a l'e"n"'t',' ",""'!j""'>,, '11'DHa"t"e'''(s')'','1 :'$, ,l,', , "',m"'$"''',, c.:<tiD"'''!:'.Jl .'t: ,', "/,"'."",'",,~,', ",~"''' ' . .. .' __'~':::~_-', .-... _ _ __. '. -_-':i::~/~:J::'f<}r':;;~"!,',::o;;~::,c:~~,,~s~~,,~,~J;)_,.~;~~::.j~~~J~";i~,'_->~Y<~':i'\-'~;';;'''' r ' County of San Mateo 1993 Negotiated for long-term disposal capacity at Ox Mountain I Landfill with BPI. r I r ( , r" r ' r [' [ r L [ [ l: City of San Buenaventura 1993 Assisted the City in the development of an RFQ, evaluation of the Statement of Qualifications, selection of a hauler and negotiation of a franchise agreement for solid waste and recycling material collection services. , City of Santa Ana 1993 South Bayside Transfer Station Authority (A joint powers authority composed of 9 cities) 1987 1988 1992 1994 City of Sunnyvale 1990 City of Thousand Oaks 1992 Tn-City Waste Management Committee 1994 Assisted the City with development of an RFP for solid waste collection services from residential and commercial customers, includin~ refuse, recyclinK, and Kleen waste diversion pro~ams. Assisted the Authority in the negotiation of a solid waste collection franchise agreement, drafted memorandum of understanding, and led negotiations. Assisted the Authority in the negotiation of an agreement for the provision of curbside residential recycling and intermediate processing center services, including the review of projected costs for the program. Assisted the Authority in the negotiation of a Material Recovery Facility. Assisting the Authority in the negotiations for the implementation of a yard waste collection pro~am. Assisted in the preparation of solid waste collection, recycling and household hazardous waste RFP for a ten-year franchise. Specifically: developed rate review methodology and performancl standards (including liquidated damages); drafted franchise agreement; drafted RFP documents; performed financial analysis of proposals; and assisted in the preparation of a contract. Revised the City's solid waste ordinance and solid waste franchise al(feement with the four franchised haulers. Assisted the Cities in the procurement of solid waste collection and disposal, household hazardous waste disposal, and green waste collection services. Specifically, developed RFP, scope of services, and franchise agreements. Serving as lead negotiator for collection, processinK, and disposal contracts. As of Au~t 1996 -13 - Hilton Pamkopf Ie Hobson, LLC '.= :n '1J ~ SUMMARY QF,SQLID,}tVASTE EXPE.RIENQ{:"",..I NEGOTlA TlON/PROCUREMENT (Continued) Client City of Union City Y'~:~:>\";!II.' Pilletsrl . !),t 1993 Assisted the City in revising the terms and conditions of its recycling collection contract with Tri-Ced Economic Development Corporation. 1993 Prepared a Request for Proposals and draft franchise agreement for selection of future solid waste service providers. 1994 Evaluated proposals received in response to Request for Proposals and negotiated a new franchise agreement with Waste Management of Alameda COWlty. 1995 Assisting the City by monitoring the implementation of curbside refuse services and a new yard waste pro~am. City of Walnut Creek 1992 West Valley Cities 1994 Assisted the City in negotiating a franchise agreement for commercial recyc1in1!; and yard waste diversion. Assisted the Cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga in the development of a Request for Proposals and a draft franchise agreement for solid waste services. PLANNING Alameda County Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee (A joint powers authority composed of 13 jurisdic- tions) City of Glendale, Arizona 1987 1988 1992 County of Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority North San Diego County Cities Joint Power Authority 1991 1991 Analyzed the purchase of Oakland Scavenger Company by Waste Management, Inc., including review of Franchise Agreements. Conducted a study of Waste Management, Inc's, corporate and regional indirect char!!;e5. Developed and presented alternative solid waste management policies and programs to the City Council, and developed a guidance document for the City to follow in developing its Inte~ated Waste Management Plan. Performed a study to determine the feasibility and benefits of a solid waste joint powers authority, Assisted several cities located in North San Diego COWlty by identifying and evaluating alternative waste diversion and disposal alternatives, including composting, materials recovery, transfer station, and landfills. City of Poway 1992 Revised City's Municipal Code to comply with the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 and the City's SRRE. As of Au~t 1996 -14 - Hnlon Pamkopf &; Hobson, LLC '.= 97 1j EXHIBIT 4 ~'i '1 J 1. Perfonn Feasibility Study and Establish Deslan Parameters a, Gather and review data b. Prepare model c. Analyze resuhsldevelop findings d. Prepare Draft Feasibility Report e. City reviews Draft Report f. Prepare Final Feasibility Report g. City makes golno go decision (Council) 2. PreDare RFP Packaae a. Prepare RFP and Draft Agreement b. Council approves RFP package c. Vendors submit proposals 3. Evaluate Submissions a. Evaluate proposals b. Document results c. Interview proposerslfinalize evaluation d. Council selects vendor(s) 4. Neaotiate Agreement a. Negotiations b. Present Agreement to Council c, Execute Agreement PROJECT SCHEDULE 30 days 1 month 30 days 1.5 months 30 days 2 months 15 days 2.5 months 7 days 2.75 months 7 days 3 months 15 days 3.5 months 30 days 4.5 months 7 days 4,75 months 30 days 5.75 months 15 days 6,25 months 7 days 6.5 months 7 days 6.75 months 7 days 7 months 15 days 7,5 months 7 days 7.75 months 7 days 8 months Page 1 91 78 EXHIBIT 5 1- 91 18 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Workplan 11/15/96 I,\~I\ HlIto. fHA.Sli 1. Assess Feasibility and Establish Design Parameters A. Conduct kick-off meeting &: prepare Project Plan 1 8 4 0 2 5 20 B Gather regional facility data 0 4 16 0 4 0 24 C Determine City facility requirements 0 12 12 0 0 64 88 D Evaluate cost of alternatives 0 12 32 0 0 24 68 E Evaluate non-financial issues 0 10 12 0 0 8 30 F Document findings and prepare report 3 18 30 0 24 16 91 G Review draft with Oty staff 0 4 4 0 0 4 12 H Prepare final report 0 6 8 0 8 2 24 I Prepare Council presentation &: present results Q 1ll Q Q i . 12 Task I Hours 4 84 118 0 42 128 376 2. Develop RFP Package A. Prepare draft RFP 4 10 4 32 16 32 98 B. Prepare draft Agreement 4 10 0 36 8 12 70 C. Complete RFP package and present to Council Q 1ll Q a a u all Task 2 Houn 8 30 4 7. 32 56 206 Phase I Hours 12 114 122 76 74 184 582 Average Hourly Rale Phase 1 Fees S 16,560 S 66,020 Plwe 1 Expe.... S 940 S 3,480 Total Phase I Fees .k Expenses S 17,500 S 69,500 PHASE II 3. Evaluate Submitted Proposals A. Develop evaluation process 1 2 0 0 1 2 6 B. Review and evaluate proposals 2 12 0 36 0 24 74 C. Document findings 2 12 0 21 16 12 63 D. Review findings with evaluation team 0 4 0 0 0 4 8 E. Interview proposers 0 8 0 0 0 8 1. F. Finalize evaluation 0 4 0 8 4 4 20 G. Meet with City to select vendor(s} for Q i Q Q Q i a negotiations Task 3 Hours 5 46 0 65 21 58 195 4. Negotiate Final Agreement & Prepare Final Report A. Provide negotiation support 8 12 0 10 30 B. Prepare Council report 0 8 4 2 14 C. Present to Council Q 6 Q 6 U Task 4 Houts 8 26 0 0 4 18 56 Estimated Phase II Hours 13 72 0 65 25 76 251 Estimated Phase II fees S 6,840 $ 30,460 Estimated Phase II Expenses $ 400 $ 1,540 Estimated Phase II fees 6: Expenses S 7,240 $ 32,000 TOTAL HOURS 25 186 122 141 99 260 833 Hourly Rates $ 200 S 160 $ 125 $ 125 S 55 S 90 TOTAL fEES S 5.000 S 29,760 S IS,2S0 S 17,62S $ 5,445 $ 23,400 $ 96,480 EXPENSES $ 1,340 S S,D20 ESTIMATED TOTAL fEES 6: EXPENSES S 24,740 S 101,500 Avera HourI Rate S 116 :; '7 " J EXHIBIT 6 97 78 . HILT. O. N FARNKOPF & HOBSON AdvlSOry ServICes to ~::...~ Mumclpal Management 3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195 Newport Beach, California 9266(l.23 I I Telephone; 714/251-8628 F,,, 714/251-9741 Fremont Newport Beach September 19, 1996 Mr . Lynn Merrill Recycling Coordinator Public Services Department, Fourth Floor City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, California 92418 COST PROPOSAL Enclosed please find our detailed workplan containing the estimated hours and fees to develop an RFP for a MRF and transfer station. Our proposed cost to perform Task 1 (Feasibility Study) and Task 2 (RFP Package) is a fixed price of $69,500, based on the scope of work described in Section 3 of our proposal. We understand that Tasks 3 and 4 will be performed on a time and materials basis. Based on our current understanding of the scope of work and certain assumptions about the evaluation and negotiation process, we estimate the cost to perform Tasks 3 and 4 is $29,500, although this could vary depending on the length of the procurement process or the complexity of the negotiations. A summary of the estimated engagement cost is provided below: I fees & Expenses i<....~~~.. TASK HOURS HF&H Aurora COSt Phase I 1. Feasibility Study 376 $33,326 $12,174 $45,500 2. RFP Package 2QQ 18.674 5.326 24.000 Subtotal Phase II 582 $52,000 $17,500 $69,500 Phase II 3. Evaluation 195 $18,480 $5,520 $24,000 4. Negotiation Support -22 6.280 1.720 8.000 Subtotal Phase II ill $24.760 $7.240 532.000 . TOTAL 833 $76,760 $24,740 $101,500 .. Estimated. Work to be performed on a time and materials basis. [, "I ,.: '1 011 I:.J . ,~'Olf HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON Mr. Lynn Merrill September 19, 1996 Page 2 We have assumed in estimating the cost of Task 3 that the City will photocopy and distribute the RFP's, conduct the proposers' conference, and respond to questions from the proposers, although we would be pleased to perform such tasks if requested, We have assumed in estimating the cost of Task 4 that the successful proposer does not identify significant exceptions to the draft Agreement, and that the negotiations are resolved in two sessions. We have also assumed that the City Attorney will make the changes to the draft Agreement during Task 4, although we would be pleased to perform this service if requested. *' It It If. :+ We look forward to discussing this proposal with you. If you have any questions, please call me at 714/251-8628. f.;~ Laith B. Ezzet, CMC Vice President Enclosure - Workplan ~ 'ecyeled"JP'p,' - ~ /' i ,) T/\SK fI:IMIU 1. Auete Feuibility and &tabllsh Design Parameters A. Conduct Idck-oll meeting "prepare project Plan 8 Gather regional facility data C 0._ City fad1ity requirements o Evaluate cost 01 alternatives E Evaluate non-finandal issues F Docwnent findings and prepare report G Review dnUt with Oty.taIl H Prepare final report I Prepare Council presentation &: present results Task I Houn 2. Develop RFP Package A. Prepare draft RFP 8, Prepare draft Agreement C, Comple" RFP package and present to Council Task 2 Houn . Ph.ue I HoUll Average Hourly Rate PIuH I fees PIYH I Exponaea ToW Pb-.I F..." Expenaea PH AJi;:P: n 3. EYaluate Submitted PropoNJa A Develop evaluation process 8, _ and <val..... propooaIs C. Docwnen. findings O. Review findings with evaluation. team E. Interview proposers F. Finalize evaluation G, Meet with Oty to select vendor(.) for negotiatioN Task 3 Houn f. Neptiate Flnal Apement 6: Prepare Aul Report A. Provide negotiation support 8. Prepare CoW1ciI report C, Preoen. to Council Tuk" Hoan Estimated Phase II Houn Estimated. Ph... n FftII Eatlmated Ph_II Expenaea Estimated Ph-.e II Feet 6: Expenaea TOTAL HOURS Hourly lUtes TOTAL FEES EXPENSES ESTIMATED TOTAL FEES " EXPENSES Avera Houri bte ~- aTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Workplan 9119196 t. Hilton 1 8 . 0 2 S 20 0 . 16 0 . 0 U 0 12 12 0 0 M 88 0 12 32 0 0 2. 68 0 10 12 0 0 8 30 3 18 30 0 2. 16 91 0 . . 0 0 . 12 0 6 8 0 8 2 2. D 1Il D D i ~ IJ . 1M 118 0 (2 128 376 . 10 . 32 16 32 98 . 10 0 36 8 12 70 D 1Il D 8 8 1Z :la 8 30 . 16 32 56 206 12 m 122 16 ,. 11M 582 $ 16.560 $ 66,ll2O $ MO $ 3,480 $ 11.soo $ 69.soo 1 2 2 U 2 12 0 . 0 8 0 . D i 5 66 8 12 0 8 D 6 8 26 13 12 25 186 200 $ 160 $ 125 $ 125 $ $ $ o o o o o o D o 36 21 o o 8 D 1 2 6 0 2. ,. 16 U 63 0 . 8 0 8 16 . . 20 D i I n 58 195 0 10 30 . 2 1. 6 1Z . 18 56 25 16 251 $ 6.560 $ 30,660 $ (()ll $ l.5fO $ 1,260 $ 32,000 99 260 833 55 $ 90 5,<<5 $ 23,600 $ 96,(80 $ 1,360 $ 5,ll2O $ 24;740 $ 101,500 $ 116 o 65 o o o 63 122 141 $,DOll $ 29.760 $ 15,250 $ 11,625 $