Too Good to Throw Away Implementation Strategy Council Briefing by Sanitation Services October 4, 2006
Purpose of Briefing Summarize preparations for Too Good To Throw Away recycling services FY07 Recommend path forward for starting the recycling collection service Too Good To Throw Away 2
Too Good To Throw Away 2006-07 Timeline Aug 2 - Brief Council; advise of award recommendations Aug 9 - Award cart supply and processing service contracts Aug 23 - Extend current blue bag collections contract into FY07 Sep 6 - Brief full Council on SAN budget with update status of recycling program for FY07 Oct 4 - Brief Council on recycling collection service recommendations Oct 11 - Award recycling collection service contract (if approved) Nov Dec Jan 2007 Deliver carts and starter kits Implement new service city-wide Too Good To Throw Away 3
Too Good To Throw Away Program Basics Increase waste diversion to 43,200 tons yearly (currently at ~10,000 tons) Twice-monthly collection in carts and/or bags - no change in twice-weekly garbage collection Four Demonstration Areas to continue weekly recycling collection in carts Manual service areas (bags only) to continue weekly recycling collection in blue bags Improve recycling drop-off sites with new containers; increase from 32 to 70 sites to address multi-family needs locations to be coordinated with Council members Too Good To Throw Away 4
Recycling Collection RFP Budget projections assumed $4.405M as cost for collection service for Jan-Sep 2007 (Year 1) Received proposals from four vendors on Aug 18 Evaluation results placed 3 of 4 vendors in tight competition - all three within budget projections Best & Final offers from best three received Sep 26, followed by Sep 29 updates Too Good To Throw Away 5
Recycling Collection RFP Best and Final Offers: All provided proposals with service start date of Jan 2007 All agreed to annual price adjustment after 24 months All agreed to replace twice monthly schedule with every other week schedule eliminates 3-week gaps in service see Appendix for calendar example Holiday pickup to be scheduled for nearest Wednesday Two of three agreed to switch to low-emission trucks, once available in 2007 Too Good To Throw Away 6
Evaluation Criteria and Points Evaluation Criteria Points Description Price 200 Monthly cost of service for all customer groups, dropoff sites, education funds Project Approach 100 Proposer's plan to provide suitable equipment (trucks, containers), staffing requirements, routing and scheduling Demonstration of customer service and complaint resolution, quality control methods, in-place service policies Experience 75 Describe service provided to large communities, with both street and alley collection; carts and bags Demonstrate financial capability for proposed project size and scope Indicate key personnel and their specific experience in conducting similar work References 100 Provide specific contact persons to susbtantiate your experience and performance for similar service Identify number of households served, diversion rates achieved, style of service, complaint rate, cost of program MWBE / Good Faith Effort 25 State intent and means to accomplish adherence to City's Good Faith Effort Totals: 500 Too Good To Throw Away 7
Tabulation of Offers Proposer Eval points Revised points* Unit pricing (per household) First FY cost Use clean fleet? Stated Exceptions Republic Waste 1 415 438 $2.06 $4,292,881 in 2007 none IESI 2 414 418 $2.10 / $2.85 $4,450,464 No none CWD 3 419 389 $1.81 $3,771,901 in 2007 Yes * Allied Waste 4 371 NA $2.60 $5,418,200 BAFO not requested * CWD's noted exceptions to the project specifications: Decrease specified penalty from $1,000 to $100 for failure to maintain trucks & vehicle permits Eliminate any penalties in first 5 weeks of contract & first 5 weeks that new vehicles are in service Seeks option to cease service delivery if City payments exceed 30 days from invoice Seeks renegotiation of rates in event of recycling processor relocation Too Good To Throw Away 8
Evaluation Team s comments Proposer Eval points Revised points* ALL Proposers - - Republic Waste 415 438 IESI 414 418 CWD 419 389 Evaluator's comments All vendors are clearly qualified to perform the work. Each showed ample capabilities in the evaluation categories; some excelled in one area or another. All appeared to understand the work scope thoroughly and expressed a strong interest in providing the service. Republic's resources (national firm with extensive equipment, labor force, and developed programs) and breadth of experience rated highly. Heir customerservice center approach and complaint resolution policies were well developed and supported by references. Gained points in BAFO when agreed to mobilize for Jan 2 start date (had previously indicated probability to delay start date.) Sterling references. Showed strong level of capabilities and interest. Points increased with 2nd review of references, offset by decrease due to plan to use trucks with 2006 engines without plan to upgrade to 2007 emission standards. CWD's experience in other cities, as well as past 6 years in Dallas, rated high. The exceptions they noted in two rounds of negotiations created concerns about their ability to meet the City's high levels of customer-service and was counter-indicative of a cooperative relationship with the City. Some noted that CWD appeared to be positioning for contentious situation. Pricing remains best of 4. Too Good To Throw Away 9
Option for consideration Use City Forces for recycling collection Proposer Eval points Revised points* Unit pricing (per household) First FY cost Use clean fleet? Stated Exceptions Republic Waste 1 415 438 $2.06 $4,292,881 in 2007 none IESI 2 414 418 $2.10 / $2.85 $4,450,464 No none CWD 3 419 389 $1.81 $3,771,901 in 2007 Yes * Allied Waste 4 371 NA $2.60 $5,418,200 BAFO not requested City of Dallas NA NA NA $1.97 $4,105,718 by 2008 none Note: City did NOT participate in RFP process as managed competition. Staff provides these cost-of-service figures at request of Council (Aug 2 recycling briefing, Aug 9 agenda, Sep 6 budget briefing, and by individual emails and memo). Too Good To Throw Away 10
City s Project Approach (budget detail in Appendix B) Mobilize manpower, equipment and coordination in Oct-Nov for 22 Recycling Collection routes, with Jan 2007 start-date place Program Manager, supervisors, and CDL drivers in Oct/Nov secure leased trucks for first and/or second year of service, transitioning to low-emission vehicles as they become available in 2007 and 2008 Award truck lease in late Oct / Nov, using rapid purchase process Train drivers on recycling routes December 15-29 Outfit Blue Crews with uniforms, truck signage, radios, supplies Schedule for every other week collection frequency; utilize nearest Wednesday for holiday make-up day Prepare and mailout of collection schedules to all customers in Nov Order replacement dropoff containers (6 and 8-cubic yard containers) for current igloo sites; coordinate with Council for additional 38 locations Too Good To Throw Away 11
Recycling Collection: Options Contract Period City 1 (est.cost projection) (cost projection based on max. allowable increases) Rate Cost Rate Cost Year 1 (9 months) $1.97 $4,105,718 $2.06 $4,292,881 Year 2 $1.94 $5,384,828 $2.06 $5,723,842 Year 3 $1.89 $5,239,242 $2.16 $5,938,486 Year 4 $1.88 $5,211,056 $2.27 $6,235,410 Year 5 $1.96 $5,452,849 $2.38 $6,547,181 Year 6 $2.06 $5,714,688 $2.50 $6,874,540 Year 7 $2.16 $5,996,809 $2.63 $7,218,267 $37,105,190 Republic 2 $42,830,607 Totals Net difference: $5,725,417 1 City costs assume: annual increases in salary (average 4%), fuel (5-10%) and fleet maintenance (approx.10%); and purchase of new clean-fuel units starting in 2008. 2 Contractor costs assume: fixed rates for Years 1 and 2, with cost adjustments for each subsequent year based on cost adjustment factor (CPI-DFW for fuel and labor), not to exceed 5% per year. Too Good To Throw Away 12
Recommendation Proceed with recycling collection service using: City Forces Pricing is competitive with private haulers, and results in up to $5.7M in overall savings compared to the most advantageous proposal. However, the City s annual program costs for this service are less certain than contractor s set 7-year rate structure. City s Sanitation Services is a known quantity with demonstrated high level of customer service Affords flexibility for any future service changes (such as switch to once-a-week recycling or incorporating extended multi-family recycling collection) Too Good To Throw Away 13
Collection Options Direction from Council to either. - Have the City Manager to bring forward a contract award item on the Oct 11 agenda - awarding to the most advantageous proposer (Republic) or - Instruct the City Manager to bring forward a resolution on the Oct 11 agenda - directing City Forces to begin recycling collection service preparations. Too Good To Throw Away 14
JANUARY FEBRUARY M T W T F S S M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 8 9 15 16 22 23 29 30 Appendix A-1: Example 2007 Calendar for Twice Monthly Tuesday Schedule 10 17 24 31 11 12 13 18 19 20 25 26 27 14 21 28 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 25 MARCH APRIL M T W T F S S M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 6 7 8 13 14 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 MAY JUNE M T W T F S S M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30
Appendix A-2: Example 2007 Calendar for Every-Other Week Tuesday Schedule JANUARY FEBRUARY M T W T F S S M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 8 9 15 16 22 23 29 30 10 17 24 31 11 12 13 18 19 20 25 26 27 14 21 28 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 25 MARCH APRIL M T W T F S S M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 6 7 8 13 14 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 MAY JUNE M T W T F S S M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 19 20 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24
Appendix B Budget Detail for City Implementation of Recycling Collection Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total (9 months) Salaries (Labor) $1,546,922 $2,083,962 $1,595,252 $1,657,544 $1,722,327 $1,789,702 $1,859,772 $12,255,481 Supplies $1,070,397 $1,484,667 $1,522,829 $1,562,529 $1,604,215 $1,648,703 $1,694,661 $10,588,000 Services $1,488,399 $1,816,199 $2,121,161 $1,990,983 $2,126,307 $2,276,283 $2,442,376 $14,261,708 Total $4,105,718 $5,384,828 $5,239,242 $5,211,056 $5,452,849 $5,714,688 $5,996,809 $37,105,190 Rate $1.97 $1.94 $1.89 $1.88 $1.96 $2.06 $2.16 Cost Assumptions * Average salary increases an estimated 4% annually over term of contract. * Reduction in temporary labor during Year 3 with introduction of new fleet with low hopper design. * Overtime calculated based on department's historical usage of approximately 20% of salaries. * Fuel costs in Year 1 at $3.10 per gallon with a 10% increase in Year 2 and a straightline increase of 5% during the subsequent years. * Built in costs for standard supplies needed for operations (i.e. uniforms, radios, environmental supplies, etc.) * Lease to own of 22 rearloaders over a 24 month period. * Introduce low emissions fleet in Year 2 of contract (FY 07-08). * Fleet maintenance during Year 1 & 2 based on estimated costs for maintaining leased equipment (contractual requirements). * Fleet maintenance during Year 3 and subsequent years based on estimated EBS costs with a 10% increase annually as the equipment depreciates. * Includes costs for servicing 70 drop-off sites for multi-family recycling using front-load containers. * Includes in-kind contributions for education as required by RFP.