Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout37118 - MINUTES - City Commission Mi nJjGS con� S016 1c� w 6�c C o n+ ere-coi, 7 � zc� t qq9 t, r I MINUTES 2 DANIA BEACH CITY COMMISSION 3 PRE-BID CONFERENCE 4 SOLID WASTE CONTRACT 5 JULY 26, 1999 6 7 RIC HUTCHINSON, R.W. BECK, CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 10:12 A.M. 8 9 Present: 10 11 City Consultant: Ric Hutchinson, R.W. Beck 12 Assistant City Attorney: Lindsey Payne 13 City Manager: Mike Smith 14 Acting City Clerk: Sheryl Chapman 15 Finance Director: Marie Jabalee 16 Utilities Director: Bud Palm 17 Deputy City Clerk: Charlene Johnson 18 19 Proposed Bidders: 20 21 ONYX Florida LLC: 22 Robert Lee 23 24 Delta Recycling: 25 Phil Foreman 26 27 BFI: 28 Bob Hely ` 29 Dan Pavone 30 31 Waste Management: 32 Tony Spadaccia 33 Bob Hyres 34 Michael Zelitt 35 John Albert 36 37 All Service Refuse: 38 Rob Teetsel 39 John Ferguson 40 Bill Waddell 41 42 Panzarella Companies, Inc.: 43 Albert Panzarella, President 44 45 Ric Hutchinson, R.W. Beck-City Consultant, advised that the meeting is being recorded and 46 that a few sets of questions have been received regarding the RFP for Solid Waste Disposal. 47 Mr. Hutchinson clarified that all answers to questions will be presented in writing to all 48 contractors attending this pre-bid conference. The contractors were encouraged to sign-in and 49 present their questions. MINUTES— PRE-BID CONFERENCE SOLID WASTE CONTRACT 1 JULY 26, 1999 t t, 7 i 50 51 Question period: 52 53 John Albert Waste Management, asked whether a contractor is required to pickup refuse that is 54 not placed in the 96-gallon containers? Mr. Hutchinson stated that the document specifies that 55 contents are to be placed in the 96-gallon container and the only exception was for the Holiday 56 pickup. Mr. Hutchinson clarified that all contractors should base their bid on all contents being 57 in the container. 58 59 Mr. Albert requested clarification in the bid document where it reads 1 provider will be chosen 60 for the garbage and the next paragraph says that one provider would be chosen for the 61 recycling. Does this mean it will be split out or will one provider be both garbage and recycling? 62 Mr. Hutchinson advised that the intent of the City is that there will be one provider. 63 64 Mr. Albert asked if the City could provide the current rates? Mr. Hutchinson advised that this 65 information is not available, but would be provided. 66 67 Mr. Albert asked to go over the bid-pricing sheet so that each contractor will know what is 68 expected. Mr. Hutchinson agreed that all bid documents will be reviewed at the end of the 69 meeting. 70 71 Dan Pavone, BFI, asked whether there was no rate adjustment on CPI for a 3-year period? Mr. 72 Hutchinson explained that there are two options: (1)A no rate increase at all on any basis for 73 the life of the contract (2)An annual rate of adjustment using the RRI (Refuse Rate Index). You 74 will be determining the cost differential of going with one of these two options. 75 76 Mr. Pavone asked if the duplex,triplex or quadplex units could use a Dumpster if they desired? 77 Mr. Hutchinson clarified that under the current ordinances the quads have a choice, but under 78 the revised ordinances that will be in place for this contract, the quads will not have a choice of 79 using a Dumpster. Those units that have dumpsters will be changing over to 96-gallon 80 containers. 81 82 TonySpadaccia, Waste Management, asked whether the expense of the $18,656.00 annual 83 charge was a one time or annual charge? Mr. Hutchinson advised that it was a one-time 84 charge. 85 86 Page 19 line 592—595—Mr. Spadaccia asked to include the wording "that any such rate 87 increase shall not be unreasonably withheld" at the end of 595. Mr. Hutchinson agreed to 88 consider the request. 89 90 Page 19—D Adjustments to Residential Generation Factors. Mr. Spadaccia asked if there was 91 any limitations or caps to the generation study? Mr. Hutchinson agreed to review the concern. 92 93 Page 24, Item C— Mr. Spadaccia asked for clarification on whether it is required to use a rear 94 load semi-automatic truck for the toter collection? Mr. Hutchinson advised that it is not the City's 95 intent to limit the contractor to a specific system. It is our intention to emphasize that the City 96 has alley collection now and demands to continue alley collection. You are welcome to use 97 whatever system you can fit into 96-gallon collection in an alley. 98 MINUTES— PRE-BID CONFERENCE SOLID WASTE CONTRACT 2 JULY 26, 1999 t t r r _i ■ 99 Mr. Spadaccia asked for clarification on experience required? Mr. Hutchinson stated that the 00 City is not going to stop an inexperienced company from submitting a proposal, but the City will i01 include length of service and experience when evaluating the bids. 102 103 Mr. Spadaccia asked whether the Emergency Rate Form in the rear of the package is part of 104 the RFP. Mr. Hutchinson advised that it is part of the RFP as Exhibit 4 and should be 105 completed. 106 107 Mr. Spadaccia asked if a resident is allowed more than one toter? Mr. Hutchinson advised that 108 the City has unlimited service. The resident will pay for the toter, but no additional charges for 109 service. Mr. Hutchinson advised that a resident would be allowed to have one (1) toter replaced 110 if it has been lost or destroyed. If the resident wants a second toter for two-can service, they 111 must purchase the second toter. Mr. Hutchinson clarified that there is mandatory service, a tri- 112 plex will be billed for three units and they will be provided with a toter each. 113 114 Mr. Spadaccia mentioned that the RFP states that recycling can be discontinued within a 30 day 115 notice and obviously there is a commitment to equipment involved. The truck could probably be 116 used somewhere. We have an inventory of bins that we are obligated to provide. Would the 117 City continue to maintain the cost of those bins or purchase them? Mr. Hutchinson advised that 118 this question would have to be reviewed and that bins require a recycling logo. 119 120 Mr. Hutchinson asked the audience if there was any miscommunication regarding Exhibit I 121 since someone presented a concern that Exhibit D was not legible and the documents on 122 reference Exhibit 1 D. Mr. Hutchinson was asked to correct the line in Exhibit 1C under C — 123 Disposal Element. 124 125 Mr. Pavone, BFI, clarified with Mr. Hutchinson that the written follow-up would be distributed to 126 everyone. 127 128 Mr. Pavone asked who owns the carts and the recycling bins supplied by the contractor once 129 the contract expires? Mr. Hutchinson agreed to address this question. 130 131 Mr. Pavone asked if the contractor was going to be paid for additional units involved with an 132 annexation? Mr. Hutchinson advised that the contractor would be paid for additional units. City 133 Manager Smith advised that the City must honor any existing contracts in the annexation areas 134 until the contracts expire just as the City did with BFI when property was annexed in 1990. 135 136 Pape 42 Section 39-Assionment and Subletting—Mr. Pavone asked if"due cause" could be 137 added? Mr. Hutchinson agreed to review that section. 138 139 Mr. Hutchinson mentioned that this question was presented in writing—Page 27, Section 15, 140 Item a. —"What does"to clear" collection complaints by the end of the day mean? Mr. 141 Hutchinson stated that it means by the end of the work day, or subsequent work day, depending 142 upon when the complaint was filed, to take care of whatever the complaint was. The garbage 143 would have to be picked up even if you have to go back and pick it up. John Albert, Waste 144 Management, asked if that means to the satisfaction of customer, for instance, if the customer 145 agreed to have the garbage picked up the next day? Mr. Hutchinson urged the contractors to 146 stick to the terms of contract. If the complaint is called in within the early time frame, the 147 complaint needs to be addressed. However, he agreed to provide further clarification. Mr. 148 Albert mentioned that in some instances with property damage and things, it is impossible to MINUTES—PRE-BID CONFERENCE SOLID WASTE CONTRACT 3 JULY 26, 1999 l r -r 149 have a resolution on the same day especially if a quote is needed or a check cut. Mr. 50 Hutchinson agreed to reword this portion. 151 152 John Ferguson All Service Refuse, asked if a clause could be added on a percentage of 153 increase when units are brought in by annexation or new development? Mr. Hutchinson agreed 154 to address the questions. 155 156 Page 9, last paragraph, in regards to replacing the first container, Mr. Ferguson mentioned that 157 people moves and take their containers with them. Will the replacement of the container be 158 figured by the unit or by the resident? Mr. Hutchinson advised that the contractor is required to 159 provide a new container if the person moves and takes the container. However, he agreed to 160 respond in writing on the question. Mr. Ferguson advised that people take them and sometimes 161 Fort Lauderdale bins are seen in other cities; it seems to be a majority of the recycling bins. 162 163 Bob Hely,BFI, asked if the City has a present obligation to deliver waste to the Reuter facility, 164 and, if so, how long does it run? Mr. Hutchinson agreed to respond in writing on this question. 165 166 John Albert Waste Management, asked if the prices would be read aloud when the bids are 167 opened? Is it is the intent to only say who did or didn't respond? Mr. Hutchinson advised that 168 the intent was that the names of the companies who responded would be announced. Mr. 169 Albert asked how long it would take to obtain the pricing information from each vendor? Mr. 170 Hutchinson advised that it would be as quickly as the bids could be evaluated and as long as it 171 takes to do whatever investigation necessary to confirm the rankings. Mr. Spadaccia,Waste 172 Management, asked when the documents would be available for perusal? Mr. Hutchinson 173 advised that initial investigation might be needed before the rankings are confirmed internally 174 and once that is done the rankings and information should be available. Mr. Spadaccia 175 confirmed with Mr. Hutchinson that 12 copies and 1 original with original signatures of the bid 176 are required. 177 178 Mr. Hutchinson presented the following questions that were received in writing from Panzarella 179 Companies: 180 181 Pace 2-3 Line 74 #6 Rate Options—"If a proposer can submit for the basic plan, but not all 182 three basic plans, do they have to fill out bid forms 1 a, 1 b, 10" Mr. Hutchinson advised that 183 you can fill out la, 1b or 1c or any combination thereof and we require that whatever form you 184 select that you complete it. If you want to provide bids under all three scenarios that's fine, but 185 complete the appropriate forms for all options you select. 186 187 "Will the City accept any other options submitted by a proposer? No 188 189 "Will the City consider fully automated system not using alleys currently in use?" No. The City 190 requires the alley collection. 191 192 Page 2-4 "What is the accuracy of the service unit numbers and how did the City arrive at the 193 figures?" Mr. Hutchinson stated that the figures are as accurate as the City could make them 194 using current information from the assessment roll and billing files. The City does believe that 195 the figures are fairly accurate, but cannot guarantee 100%. 196 197 Page 33=3"Can the City provide a copy of Chapter 13, Article 47" Sheryl Chapman, 198 Administrative Services Director, provided copies for those in attendance. Mr. Hutchinson MINUTES— PRE-BID CONFERENCE 4 JULY 26, 1999 SOLID WASTE CONTRACT t- 1 C"- 7 199 reminded the contractors that the existing City Code sections would be changed to meet the [0� Specifications in the RFP. 202 Pape 3-5—#17-Proposer's Bid Bond-'What det203 Dania Beach?"Mr. Hutchinson stated that he City es olok ng fora akstate-qualified dee sCityOf itory. 204 205 "What required information needs to be submitted along with the Performance Bond?" Mr. 206 Hutchinson advised that the information is listed throughout the document and that a checklist is 207 provided in the back. 208 209 When can written responses be expected?" Mr. Hutchinson advised that the goal is next 210 Wednesday, but sooner if possible.211 212 Page 4 6 "ff you don't have audited financial statements, can something else be substituted?" 213 Mr. Hutchinson agreed a take compiled, reviewed or internal) 214 but in that case, the City would also require a tax return for the most current years. 215 Y Prepared financial statements, 216 Pape 6 of the Contract- "Do the customers have to have the refrigerator removed before 217 placing out�items for collecting in white goods?" 9 g 218 that it is up to the contractor to make se its takenrcaretofinson advised that they do not and 219 220 Page tract-"Is this document a franchise or a contract?" Mr. Hutchinson advised that it 221 is a contract. The place where franchise is mentioned will be corrected. 222 223 F999-7 A. Residential Roll-out Collection Service in Contract-"Is one cart issued to each unit?" ?24 Mr. Hutchinson stated yes. "In the case of a duplex or larger, what is the intent?" Mr. 225 Hutchinson advised that there are 4 units to a quad, 3 units to tri, and 2 units in a duplex. The 226 City is going to revise some definition language to make that very clear so there is no 227 and that is what you are providing to is the units. 228 questions 229 "What is the current number of backdoor service?" Mr. Hutchinson advised that there is no 230 numbers available that the City is aware of at this time. 231 233 Pape 10#11. -Additional Roll-out Garbage Containers-" 233 who pays for the service?" Mr. Hutchinson restated that the customer pays foWho pays the r the l cart and cart and 234 there is not additional a 235 payment for the service because the City 236 Pape 10 B Bulk Waste Collection Service Provides unlimited service. 237 yards the cwrent limitation?" Mr. Hutchinson responded Yes to both questions. ------_- Is a customer considered one unit?" 'Are six cubic 238 239 "Can bulk pickup be scheduled for one or more consecutive day in an area or an entire week in 242 240 one area?" Mr. Hutchinson advised that two (2) consecutive days would be the most that bulk pickup could be scheduled in an area. Currently, the City has five basic areas. The City will allow the ccntractor to determine how many areas they want. 243 244 Pagg 11 "yVfiat is the intent of segregating the piles?" Mr. Hutchinson advised that it is a 245 requirement of the current contract and the City thought it might make life easier for the collector 246 if this was continued since residents are already doing it. Mr. Hutchinson asked the audience if 247 anyone did not want segregation? No response. 248 MINUTES-PRE-BID CONFERENCE SOLID WASTE CONTRACT 5 JULY 26, 1999 t- - f r 7 t 249 "Would the City consider regulations to lower cost and have residents bundle bulk trash and 50 containerize the smaller items?" Mr. Hutchinson advised that, under the current system 251 residents are required to containerize yard waste, which is defined as the smaller items, in the 252 96-gallon container,. The bulk waste is just going to be placed at the curb and residents are not 253 required to bundle it, only segregate it. 254 255 "What is the average number of dumps per month this past year of Public Works roll-offs?" Mr. 256 Hutchinson advised that it is one week. 257 258 Pape 12—"Can notices be published in any local newspaper or is distribution by door hanger or 259 card acceptable?" Mr. Hutchinson clarified door hanger, not cart. 260 261 Page 14— Recycling Holiday -"Shouldn't collection occur on the next regularly scheduled 262 pickup day and not work day consistent with solid waste collection?" Mr. Hutchinson said no 263 because solid waste collection is twice a week, so if one is missed, there is another one coming 264 up. It is only once a year. 265 266 Bob Helv BFI, questioned what happens if the disposal facility is closed for more than one 267 holiday? Mr. Hutchinson mentioned that the City does not direct the contractor where to go 268 because they tell the City where they want to go. Mr. Hely was concerned that the directed 269 disposal facility may be under a different holiday than the collection schedule may be. Mr. 270 Hutchinson agreed that if there is no place to take the garbage then the City would have to 271 make allowances and the question will be considered. 272 273 "What is the current number of units receiving recycling services and the tonnage being 174 collected for each material?" Mr. Hutchinson advised that all he has at this time is that there are 275 about 4 to 5 tons per month being collected and recycled. But there is no full recycling program 276 going on at this time, so this is partial. "Mr. Hutchinson asked staff if information is available 277 regarding the number of units actually being served or something we can get together?" City 278 Manager Smith advised that recycling is only being done in the Griffin/Ravenswood area. Mr. 279 Hutchinson heard 1526 units. 280 281 Page 14 #1 last sentence -"What is the requirement for recycling programs for Christmas 282 trees and telephone books and whether specifics are left up to the contractor?" Mr. Hutchinson 283 advised that its basically left up to the contractor, however, the City wants the program to be 284 sufficient to make sure the telephone books are collected in a recycling program. The Christmas 285 trees are going to fall outside the definition of the waste normally collected and the City needs to 286 make sure that they are being collected. Its find if the contractor has a recycling mechanism in 287 place to recycle these items and its okay if its just a collection program. The City will provide a 288 language change, but the City does not want the Christmas trees sitting around for a month 289 waiting for the standard yard waste collection service and then being left because they are out 290 of the 4-foot limit. Mr. Albert clarified that the Christmas trees have to be collected, but they do 291 not necessarily have to be recycled. Mr. Hutchinson agreed and stated that the language will 292 be adjusted. 293 294 Page 15 B and Page 16 - Recycling-Improper Procedure—Mr. Hutchinson advised that co- 295 mingling of newspapers with co-mingled recyclables was not addressed as being improper. 296 While these items need to be collected in any way possible, however, if someone puts out a 297 recycling bin with a bunch of cans and bottles and newspapers sitting on top, that is not going to 298 be unacceptable. 299 MINUTES— PRE-BID CONFERENCE SOLID WASTE CONTRACT 6 JULY 26, 1999 f V r, T F r 300 Page 18 —Unit Count—"Will a contractor be compensated in arrears for services rendered after 31 the unit count has been adjusted since we assume the City will have collected the fees?" Mr. .302 Hutchinson advised that there is no intention to try to conduct some type of catch up and the 303 belief is that the additional units that would be added during any year would be immaterial. In 304 the event that something unforetold occurs and there is a major change in units, a provision has 305 been provided in the contract for unusual costs that could be brought back to the City. 306 307 Bob Hely, BFI, was concerned that the annexation could turn out to be substantial based upon 308 the decisions by the Legislative Delegation. Mr. Hutchinson agreed that a percentage change 309 could be considered and that the City does not expect the contractor to be forced to collect a 310 large number of houses for anywhere from a month to 12 months without compensation. 311 312 Page 19—Adjustment to Residential Generation Factors—"Is there any adjustment for any 313 other reason aside from change in law?" Mr. Hutchinson did not believe so. The contract gives 314 the contractor the ability to conduct a generation study in the event that there is any type of 315 material change. This would be the only reason that either party would want to incur the cost of 316 the study and he urged the contractors to be real tight on the generation number because it 317 would last through the contract, unless there is a material change. 318 319 Page 21 —Recycling Revenue—"Why is the payment to the City not consistent in 30 days as 320 the contractor payments from the City are?" Mr. Hutchinson agreed to review the question. 321 322 Page 22—Supervisor requirement- "Does the City want a supervisor exclusive to their needs?" 323 Mr. Hutchinson advised that during the time that the company is collecting, a supervisor should 324 be on site available to the City. The supervisor's job is to be checking the City routes and 325 answering complaint calls during the day so that there is a zero complaint problem at the end of 326 each day. 327 328 Page 24—Collection Equipment— Mr. Hutchinson advised that the City is not specifying what 329 type of equipment needed,just that service is provided. 330 331 Page 26—The complaint log—"Is fax or email acceptable for reporting purposes?" Mr. 332 Hutchinson said yes, both are acceptable. 333 334 Page 27—Section 15—Quality of Performance of Contractor—"Will the contractor receive any 335 written notice of violation with a reasonable opportunity to respond?" Mr. Hutchinson mentioned 336 that the complaints are coming directly to the contractor. The City will pass on any complaints 337 that they receive. The City will not send you a pre-assessment notice saying you haven't 338 complied with the requirements. The contractor needs to comply with the requirements or the 339 charges will be assessed. Certainly, when you receive an assessment notice, we would 340 assume you would call and discuss the issue. The City would be open to listening to what you 341 have to say, but we won't be formalizing a pre-notice notice within the contract. 342 343 Page 34—Section 24—Books and Records- "Will the contractor be given prior notice as 344 provided for in other sections of the documents on inspection of books and records?" Mr. 345 Hutchinson advised that on page 34 the City can review your records during normal business 346 hours and that is where we prefer to leave it. 347 348 Exhibits 1A, 1 B, 1 C—Mr. Hutchinson clarified that there is no provision for a processing fee if 349 applicable recyclable materials. The contractor tells the City how much they want to collect the 350 materials. The City does not want to get involved in the processing fee. MINUTES— PRE-BID CONFERENCE SOLID WASTE CONTRACT 7 JULY 26, 1999 f c- r, r _t 351 52 Exhibit 1D "Is this form used in conjunction with all cost alternatives 1A, 18 and 1C?" Mr. 353 Hutchinson responded yes. Mr. Hutchinson advised that 1D provides the cost of the roll out 354 container and recycling bins under Options 1 and 2. That would take place and be used with 355 whichever options 1A, 1 B and 1 C the contractor completes. 356 357 Exhibit 5 -All commodities except newsprint are normally reported as commingled by the myrf. 358 In Exhibit 5, we are asking for percentages by weight of the various components of the 359 recyclable materials. Mr. Hutchinson asked the audience if this was normally done. Bob Hely, 360 BFI, stated that there was not way to get those individual numbers. Mr. Hutchinson clarified 361 with Mr. Hely that it is just newsprint and then everything else is commingled. Mr. Hutchinson 362 agreed to take this under consideration, as the City cannot ask for something that is not 363 available. 364 365 Mr. Hutchinson mentioned that contractors have asked for several items. The City does not 366 have any current route maps to provide, which is why it's asking for them in the contract. The 367 City was asked to provide copies of all correspondence received by the City up to the 368 submission of bids regarding this RFP. Mr. Hutchinson advised that this document that has just 369 been reviewed is the only thing that has been received. Sheryl Chapman, Administrative 370 Services Director, commented on faxes that have been received and Mr. Hutchinson agreed to 371 provide anything that has been received. Copies will be provided to everyone of the list of 372 companies and representatives attending this pre-bid conference along with all other responses. 373 374 Mr. Hutchinson asked the audience if there were any other specific questions that were not 375 addressed? No response. 376 377 Page 2 of the Contract—(e) Bulk Yard Trash_—Mr. Hutchinson advised that there will be a 378 change to the definition and it will be provided in writing. It will read"All types of palm fronds 379 and Yard Trash not exceeding four(4)feet in its longest dimension or six (6) inches in 380 diameter." The intent is that other than the palm fronds and the exception on the Christmas 381 trees, the contractor will not be collecting anything over four(4)feet or six (6) inches in 382 diameter. 383 384 John Albert, Waste Management asked if materials generated by a commercial landscaper 385 would not be included? Mr. Hutchinson agreed that contractor generated materials is excluded 386 under these various definitions. Mr. Albert asked if the City has any tonnage figures as to the 387 solid waste? Bud Palm, Utilities Director, stated that the City was unable to obtain these 388 figures. 389 390 John Ferguson, All Service Refuse, Co., asked if there is any commitment by the City to 391 Reuter? Is there also any commitment by the City to BFI's MRF or any other MRF for the 392 recyclables? Mr. Hutchinson advised that the City will respond in writing, but contractors are 393 currently being asked to provide cost forms based on the concept that you can bid on any of 394 those forms and provide the best deal that you can. 395 396 Mr. Hutchinson directed everyone's attention to the forms in the back of the RFP. 397 398 Exhibit I—Mr. Hutchinson advised of the following three services that are being requested 399 from the contractors and defined within the contract: 400 401 (1) Residential roll-out collection services MINUTES—PRE-BID CONFERENCE SOLID WASTE CONTRACT 8 JULY 26, 1999 f , 402 (2) Bulk waste services 03 (3) Residential recycling collection service. 404 405 Exhibit 1A—"Collection Element" - Monthly Unit Collection Rate- Mr. Hutchinson advised that 406 this relates to what the contractor will charge per unit per month for the collection portion of 407 each of the three services, which does not include disposal. For each service, there will be a 408 collection element, a cost for the containers or bins as appropriate, a repair and replacement 409 charge per containers/bins, and a disposal element, other than for recycling. The City just 410 wants the collection costs under the "Collection Element". In the event, the option with the 411 annual rate adjustment is chosen, the collection element will be one of the elements that will be 412 adjusted. 413 414 #2 Initial Container/Bin Element-the City wants to know what the cost is for the initial container 415 and on the next line for the initial bin or bins. 416 417 #3 Container/Bin Repair and Replacement—Mr. Hutchinson stated that the City wants to know 418 how much of the total cost is going to be for either the replacement and repair of the roll-out 419 garbage containers, or in the case of the recycling bins, replacement. There is obviously no 420 repair there. Yes, this is per unit per month. John Albert, Waste Management, asked if a bin 421 cost$5.00, which is a one-time thing, is the contractor suppose to divide that number by the 422 months of the contract to give you a monthly number or do you want the $5.00 number? Mr. 423 Hutchinson stressed that the City wants the monthly number. The City wants to end up with a 424 per unit per month overall cost breakdown by these components. Mr. Albert mentioned that for 425 instance if zero was put in there and they included it in their collection cost, "I guess I am not 426 sure what the advantage or what you are trying to get at by putting in the bin cost?" Mr. 127 Hutchinson stated that he is not asking the contractor to do that, but the City wants to know 428 what the breakdown is. Mr. Albert mentioned that what if someone put in $1.00; we need to 429 know how long we are taking that number so we are all getting the same numbers. Mr. 430 Hutchinson stated that you are looking at a five-year contract with a potential for a three-year 431 option. Mr. Albert asked if the number is divided by five years (60 months) or by eight years (96 432 months). Mr. Hutchinson advised that it is up to the contractor. Discussion from the audience 433 was not heard. Mr. Hutchinson advised that comments from the audience must be on record. 434 He advised that he cannot tell the contractor how to put the numbers together, but the way the 435 contract is written for term is that it is the City's option to renew or not, based upon their 436 considerations at that time. But, we would like you to break down each of these numbers to a 437 per unit per month cost. Mr. Spadaccia, Waste Management, asked if the last number is that 438 number times the number of units? Mr. Spadaccia stated that if you have a $1.00 a month and 439 you have 5640 units then its $5,640.00. Mr. Hutchinson said not on this form, all you are going 440 to come up with is a total per unit per month cost, so that the bottom line on this form is going to 441 be $12.76 for example; we will multiply it out for the annual cost. 442 443 John Albert_,Waste Management, clarified that if we take the first line "Collection Element" and 444 we said our collection for the roll-out carts is $1.00, bulk waste is $1.00 and recycling is$1.00, 445 then in that last column under total, we put$3.00, not$3.00 times 5640. Mr. Hutchinson agreed 446 with Mr. Albert and apologized if the unit numbers were created confusion for the contractors. 447 448 Mr. Albert mentioned that under the disposal element, since there are no present tonnage 449 figures on the generation rates, are we suppose to just take our best estimate? Mr. Hutchinson 450 stated that the City does not have access to this information. 451 MINUTES—PRE-BID CONFERENCE SOLID WASTE CONTRACT 9 JULY 26, 1999 t- r y 452 Dis osal Element—Mr. Hutchinson advised that on the first line, the City is he proposed asking for the factor that the contractor is going to use in calculating disposaost for residential 53 generation -factor service or residential roll out collection service and for the bulk waste servi l cce. T 455 tipping fee will be applied to those generation factors during the life of th 456 knowledge that there i e contract with the for. s provision in the contract for passive disposal fees. The reason the we want 457 the generation number is if the contractor proposes a $26.00 per ton fee and later it goes to 458 $27.00, the City would need to know what that does to the rates. It will be that dollar change 459 times your generation factor. Mr. Albert asked if the Reuter tipping 460 tipping fee as of the date the bid is turned in, because usually there is an increase as of October 461 fee is suppose to be the 1, which is when the contract would go into affect. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the City wants the 462 tipping fee that the contractor is proposing to provide the service at. Mr.Albert stated"under the 463 first year and whatever it would be as of October 1, 1999,'? Mr. Hutchinson agreed. 464 465 Mr. Tony Spadaccia Waste Mana ement, presented a concern with how the City would deal 466 with someone su 467 year it goes to $5 00 He w ndeed if the fo mula accompr—ton fee formodated modal dfromorth this^type of iami spr ad as far as 468 an alternative. Mr. Hutchinson thanked him for the thoughts. 469 470 Mr. Hu_ — tchinson advised the contractors that the City is requesting a name and address of the 471 disposal facility. The City is asking for generation factors times the tipping fee to provide the 472 monthly unit disposal rate, which would be the cost per unit per month for disposal. Then you 473 would sum those figures and come up with a monthly rate per residential solid waste service 474 unit. So that would be for example the$12.76, or whatever, and it would be broken out between 475 the three services and then totaled. 476 177 O tions- 178 479 Mr. H__utchinson advised that the first option would be that there is an adjustment in the collection 480 rates, using the RRI, with the understanding that the base scenario at the top has no annual 481 adjustment. So under this option, if there is an annual adjustment, the City needs to know what 482 that would do to the collection rate proposed up top. For example, if there were a 10-cent per 483 month per unit decrease, we would want a negative 10 cents in that first column. If there is a 484 zero change, then put a zero. If it is going to cost the City more money, then put a positive 485 number in. It is whatever the affect is on those rates. 486 487 BobBob Hely, questioned how a dollar figure could be added if the contractors don't know what 488 the RRI is? Mr. Hely understood if a percentage figure of the RRI was added, but since its 489 futuristic there is no way to put a dollar figure in. Mr. Hutchinson advised that the differential 490 being provided is the difference between a locked in fee, no change whatsoever, and an annual 491 adjustment fee that is tied into an index. Mr. Hely mentioned that if a whole number in put in, 492 then it is not tied to anything, and the number is tied to the number being bid. Mr. Hely stated 493 that if it's to be tied to an RRI, we don't know what it will be next year to put a number in. Mr. 494 Hutchinson stated that if you are using the RRI, then you will get an annual change in the rate. 495 So, if the contractor bids on the first number, the monthly unit collection rate is$6,00, then you 496 are going to get$6.00 for collection for the next five years. Mr. Hutchinson continued to 497 explain that if there is a $1.00 decrease, under an annual adjustment, then the first year you are 499 s its 2 The second year, you are at$5.00 plus whatever that annual increase is from RRI, 499 say its 2%, the third year you have an RRI, the fourth year an RRI, the fifth year an RRI. It is 500 the difference between a flat rate and an annual adjustment. All the contractors are telling the 501 City is what the starting point is. Mr. Hel 502 that if you were just y was still confused and asked if what you are saying is going to base your first year of bid on the number bid up above, you would MINUTES —PRE-BID CONFERENCE SOLID WASTE CONTRACT 10 JULY 26, 1999 d_ t ft-- r. t 503 put a zero and that would become your number. Mr. Hutchinson stated that if the contractor )4 does not believe there is a benefit for an annual adjustment, opposed to a flat rate, then you put o05 a zero. Mr. Hely was still confused. 506 507 Tony Spadaccia Waste Management, asked what the affect would be on the option period if a 508 fixed rate were provided for the first five years? Mr. Hutchinson stated that in the event that 509 the City proposes to extend the contract and the contractor accepted, then both parties are on 510 the same basis. Mr. Spadaccia clarified that the contractor must really extend the front pricing 511 for eight years, if you choose that category. Mr. Hutchinson agreed. Mr. Spadaccia clarified 512 that if you figure CPI for eight years then you bill it into that number, and if you use the RRI, then 513 you could reduce your introductory number by the CPI and then take the results of the RRI. Mr. 514 Spadaccia stated that it would either be a zero or a decrease. Mr. Hutchinson agreed that he 515 would expect it to be a decrease. Mr. Spadaccia asked if a positive number could be added? 516 Mr. Hutchinson agreed that a positive number could be added. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the 517 City would assume that if a flat rate is used then the contractor is going to figure out what their 518 costs are from year one to year five and average them. The City would also assume that the 519 number would be lower if the contractor knew they were getting an annual rate increase. Mr. 520 Hutchinson stated that if we were incorrect, the numbers would show this. Mr. Spadaccia 521 clarified that there is no negotiation at the end of five years as to CPI increase or RRI differential 522 for that first option period going out of there. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the City does not want 523 to negotiate rates throughout the life of the contract. The City wants everyone to know up front 524 that this is what the contract is and if it is a good contract and services are where they should 525 be, the City will have the option to renew and the contractor would have the option to accept. 526 Mr. Spadaccia suggested making an 8-year contract with a 5- year review. Mr. Hely asked if 527 you would plug in a zero on a decrease for the first year if you were just going to take the first 928 year price and accept whatever the RRI is on an annual basis? Mr. Hutchinson agreed. Mr. .i29 Hely asked if the contractor would still be entitled to the RRI, positive or negative each year, 530 based on your first year bid. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the City did not envision it being 531 done this way and the City is trying to find out if it is beneficial for the City to take a flat rate 532 contract or go into an annual adjustment. Mr. Hal y reconfirmed that how the flat rate would be 533 bid up above and then down below the RRI would be over and above that amount and that the 534 initial entry could be a zero, if the contractor were willing to take the RRI upwards or 535 downwards. Mr. Hutchinson agreed it could be zero. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that in 536 evaluating the bids, it would be interpreted that the contractor seen no value in the RRI and the 537 City may, at their disposition, award a flat rate if you put a zero. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the 538 City is going to look at the benefit to the City. Mr. Hely asked for clarification in the addendum. 539 Mr. Hutchinson agreed to include a method for the contractor to indicate they are using the RRI 540 method, if its beneficial or not, and we may ask you not to put a zero, but to put some 541 differential, be it a penny. Mr. Spadaccia mentioned that there are times when the RRI has 542 produced a negative number, which resulted in a roll back in pricing. Wouldn't it take care of 543 itself? So, if you put a zero wouldn't it lend itself to being inadequate, because the RRI could 544 still conceivably produce a negative or an increase? Mr. Hutchinson advised that historically the 545 RRI has produced one negative number in the last 10 years. Mr. Spadaccia mentioned 546 Pompano. Mr. Hutchinson corrected his comment to two over the past 10 years and mentioned 547 that it doesn't occur very often. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the City is going to determine 548 whether it is beneficial to the City to stay on a flat rate or not and we will change this form to 549 take the word decrease off of there. If someone thinks it is a positive, we will certainly allow it to 550 be put in. Mr. Hely asked for a separate bid form for a five-year fixed rate price and an optional 551 bid for base year plus RRI, upwards or downwards. Mr. Hutchinson agreed that this would be 552 beneficial. Mr. Ferguson All Service Refuse, thought another price sheet with that scenario 553 would be much easier. MINUTES— PRE-BID CONFERENCE SOLID WASTE CONTRACT 11 JULY 26, 1999 d- 1 r i 554 55 Second Option— Under the current contract, the City is asking for a 50% share in recycling 056 revenues. In the event, the contractor were to retain all recycling revenues, the form is asking 557 what that would do for the price change under the recycling collection program. Bob Helv BFI 558 advised that it is not confusing, but it is hard to evaluate. If you are not directing the material to 559 a particular facility, then one hauler may sell those materials for a dollar and one may sell for a 560 penny and your 50% could be substantially different to determine a fair number. Mr. Hutchinson 561 advised that it is beneficial for the hauler to sell it for the most he can sell it for because he is 562 keeping the other 50%. The City is not concerned with what the contractor is selling the 563 material for, but rather, how it will affect the rate. Mr. Hutchinson advised that this option will be 564 left at the bottom and a new form will be added as discussed. 565 566 Cost Proposal Form 4 Exhibit 1 D—The City wants information on manufacturer, model and 56 568 description of the containers and the recycling bins. The containers must be green in color. 569 John Albert Waste Management, clarified that the roll-out cart requires the City seal on them 570 and that the recycling bins do not. Mr. Hutcinson agreed and mentioned that it would be the 571 standard recycling logo. 572 573 Mr. Helv BFI asked if the information is added on 1 D, would it be necessary to add it on Form 574 1A, 18, or 1C. Mr. Hutchinson advised that this is the cost per container that the contractor is 575 going to charge for replacements. It would be the same number as added on 1A, 1B, and 1C 576 before division. 577 578 Exhibit 2A—The RRI "Refuse Rate Index" is explained. 579 S80 Exhibit 3— Collection Equipment Reporting Form—The City would assume that the contractor 581 would use the equipment when it is submitted on this form. 582 583 Exhibit 4—Emergency Service Rates—This would only be used in an emergency and at the 584 request of the City. 585 586 Exhibit 5— Residential Recycling Form—The City will address this form based on the fact that 587 information may not be available. 588 589 Final Section is just required forms. 590 591 Mr. Hutchinson clarified that the City is not asking for a performance bond with the proposal 592 package. However, the City requires a Letter of Intent from the contractor's agency that 593 specifically addresses the fact that the amount and language is acceptable to them and is a 594 commitment. The City will not accept anything that states "in the event Waste Management get 595 this bid, we will be happy to consider giving them a bond." Mr. Hutchinson advised that the 596 letter must include language that the company will and is prepared to provide a bond that meets 597 the language and amount. The City must have a commitment. 598 599 Mr. Hutchinson asked if there were any other questions. 600 601 Mr. Hely. BFI asked if those present at this meeting would be the limited number of bidders. 602 Mr. Hutchinson stated yes and agreed to get back to all the bidders as soon as possible. 603 604 Meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m. MINUTES—PRE-BID CONFERENCE SOLID WASTE CONTRACT 12 JULY 26, 1999 4- f