HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.B- Council Office DOC ID: 2057 A
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO—REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
In Support/Opposition
From: Chas A. Kelley M/CC Meeting Date: 10/15/2012
Prepared by: Cheryl Weeks, (909) 384-5188
Dept: Council Office Ward(s): All
Subject:
Discussion and Possible Action Re: Request for Proposals for Franchising of All Components of
the City's Solid Waste Services. (At Meeting of October 1, 2012, Item Continued to October 15,
2012.)
Financial Impact:
The processing of refuse,recyclables and green waste is accounted for in the Integrated Waste
Fund No. 527. This approval will allow the City to contain costs until longer-term agreements
and plans are established as a result of the expiration of the Waste Delivery Agreement with the
County of San Bernardino.
Motion: Direct the City Manager to Issue "Request for Proposals for Solid Waste
Collection, Receiving, Processing, Transfer and Disposal Services" Forthwith
Including the Approval and Implementation of the Timeline Discussed in the
Staff Report.
OSynopsis of Previous Council Action:
Item was tabled at the September 17,2012 meeting.
Background:
«Insert background here>>
Supporting Documents:
Updated: 10/2/2012 by Linda Sutherland A Packet Pg.21
lob
• tECEiVEO CI?'f GLEBE` /D-/S
2012 OCT 15 AM 11: 15
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: James F. Penman, City Attorney
FROM: Richard D. Luczak, Deputy City Attorney
DATE: October 12, 2011
RE: Summary of Changes to Mayor's RFP(10/11/12)
Following is a summary of substantive changes to the Request for Proposals that exist
in the Mayor's RFP provided to our office at approximately 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, October
11, 2012:
1. Page 1,the RFP prohibits the proposers from contacting City staff and elected
officials under penalty of nullifying the proposal.
2. There is no longer a requirement that the City's territory be divided into two
zones. Rather, Proposals will be for the entire City.
3. The new RFP allows two separate bids:a)a"Required Proposal"which is for
a 7 year term and accounts for all services currently provided by the IWMD, including street
sweeping,and seeks a single lump sum the City would be required to pay to the contractor for
providing the services;and b)an"Alternative Proposal"for a 20 year tern to include service
changes and enhancements the proposer deems appropriate.
4. The term has changed from a 10 year period to a 7 year period or 20 year
period. The 7 year period suggested in the new RFP does not appear to be correctly calculated
and is listed as being from February 4, 2013 through December 31, 2019 (approximately 1
month short of the 7 year period, though this may simply be to end it at the end of the year).
5. As phrased,a proposer may submit an alternative proposal for a 20 year period,
and the City would have to provide 20 years notice to terminate.
6. In the original RFP, rates were to remain constant, though under the existing
Rate Resolution,the rates would be adjusted pursuant to the change in CPI for this region,and
the Mayor and Council could choose not to impose the rate increase by a simple majority vote.
In the new RFP,rate adjustments wi11 occur automatically at 80%of the CPI,with any landfill
P:\LUCZB \Memo re changes to H P.wpd
component adjusted according to actual cost, and processing fees will also be adjusted based
on 80% of the CPI. There is no provision allowing the Mayor and Council to choose not to
impose the increase.
7. The time line has changed from submissions being due in November 2012 and
services to begin January 1, 2013 to submissions being due in mid-December 2012 and
services to begin February 4, 2013.
8. While the RFP acknowledges that there are two existing franchise haulers who
have many accounts,Page 9 ('Description of Services')is not entirely accurate. It states the
City currently provides service to all residential accounts and most commercial accounts.
Annexed areas of the City are serviced by existing franchisees(Cal and Burrtec),though the
City may take over those services after 5 years pursuant to statute or when the franchises
expire in 2014 pursuant to the franchise agreements.
9. Much of the discretion of the Council to choose a franchisee has been
ameliorated by the evaluation criteria on page 14.
10. The original RFP required all City facilities to be serviced free of charge and
required special events to be serviced free of charge(the City periodically has special events
like Route 66 or neighborhood clean ups). The Mayor's RFP does not provide for special
events.
11. The new RFP requires the City to continue residential billing but requires the
franchisee to assume responsibility for commercial billing.
12. The original RFP had a 50%division ofmonies derived from recyclables while
the new RFP allows the contractor to retain all of the recyclable monies during the 7 year term,
though if the 20 year option is selected,the franchisee will be required to remit some amount.
13. The original RFP required the franchisee to hire the displaced City employees
for the term of the agreement. The Mayor's RFP allows the contractor to hire qualified
employees for a tern suggested by the contractor and approved by the City.
14. Franchise fees are only paid under the 20 year alternative proposal.
15. It is important to note that there is a significant omission in the new RFP
regarding state mandated diversion requirements which, if the contractor fails to meet,could
lead to liability.
P:\LVCZH \Memo re changes to "P.wpd