Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.F.1. Award Contract for Garbage/Recycling RFP Consultant 0 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Consultant —RFP for Garbage/Recycling DATE: September 28, 2012 Comment: ACTION SOUGHT: Council to authorize hiring Foth Engineering to assist in the preparation and solicitation of Requests for Proposals (RFP's) for a garbage /recycling contract for City residents. BACKGROUND: The contract with the City's current provider, Dick's Sanitation, has been in effect since 2001. The initial five year term was renewed in 2006 for an additional five years, and, in exchange for some price concessions, it was extended in 2011 for three more years. The existing contract expires May 31, 2014. At its June 5 meeting, Council discussed a proposal from Dick's Sanitation regarding single -sort recycling. To recoup their investment in the necessary equipment for that system, Dick's sought an extension of the existing contract for five more years. Instead, the Council gave direction to staff to seek alternate proposals for refuse and recycling services for those covered under the City's contract. During the eleven years that this contract has been in effect, several state laws have been enacted which impact garbage and recycling collection. Shakopee, through Scott County, is also now required to follow the provisions of the Solid Waste Master Planning Ordinance. There have also been technical changes in the industry which have taken place during that time, not the least of which is the trend to go to single -sort recycling. Other issues, such as the collection of organic waste, and whether the City is better off owning the collection carts (and, therefore, contracting only for the labor involved) should also be investigated. This is a large contract, and means the collection of millions of dollars in fees from Shakopee customers over the life of the agreement. Recognizing the need for assistance in the preparation of the RFP, staff contacted two engineering firms who have had experience with solid waste and recycling, and sought proposals from them to act as consultants for the City. Proposals were received from SEH, and from Foth Engineering. A committee made up of the Public Works Director, Public Works Superintendent, Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Director, and the City Administrator met with representatives of both firms, and reviewed the proposals which they later submitted. The committee's recommendation is to go with Foth Engineering. Foth recently assisted the City of Maplewood in its complicated transition from an open system to an organized system. Foth has also had experience with Washington and Ramsey Counties, and the Cities of Minneapolis, Edina and Little Canada, Minnesota. Foth is proposing to team with Schaefer Consulting, which is Tracy Coenen Schaefer. Ms. Schaefer worked for five years as the Assistant to the City Administrator in Shakopee, and therefore has much knowledge of Shakopee's local solid waste situation and the current contract, and is recognized as an expert in the field of franchise services. SCHEDULING: As the contract is due to expire May 31, 2014, work should begin now on the RFP. This will provide adequate time for Staff and the Environmental Advisory Commitee to meet with the consultant and determine the issues to be addressed in an RFP. It would allow time to meet with prospective "bidders ", and answer questions, so that the RFP could be sent out in early 2013. At this time, it is anticipated that the contract would be then awarded April or May of 2013. This would then give any new contractor twelve months of time to order any necessary trucks and collection carts. BUDGET IMPACT: The proposal from Foth Engineering for the project as scoped is an estimated cost of $27,750. That allows for two meetings with the EAC; more than that would be on a per meeting basis. This service was not anticipated in the 2012 Budget; however, the City received nearly $32,000 in early 2012 as its share of recycling revenues. Normally, that goes into the General Fund balance; the recycling proceeds would be the logical source of funding for this consulting service. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that Council authorize entering into an agreement with Foth Engineering to provide the consulting services. RELATIONSHIP TO VISIONING: This supports Goal A, "Keep Shakopee a safe and healthy community where residents can pursue active and quality lifestyles "; and Goal B, "Positively manage the challenges and opportunities presented by growth, development, and change." ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize entering into a contract with Foth Engineering to provide consulting services for refuse and recycling collection services in the City of Shakopee. Mark McNeill MM:en City Administrator •Foth Eagle Point 11 • 8550 Hudson Blvd. North • Suite 105 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 288 -8550 • Fax: (651) 288-8551 www. fat conr September 5, 2012 City of Shakopee Attention: Mark H. McNeill City Administrator 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mark, RE: Refuse and Recycling Collection Services for the City of Shakopee Thank you for this opportunity to work with you on a procurement process for your refuse and recycling collection contractor. This will be a fun and interesting project. The Foth Team has extensive experience working with cities on similar solid waste collection proj- ects. We are very familiar with the technologies, current trends, and potential contractors active in the local marketplace that may submit proposals. We are joined by Tracy Coenen - Schaefer for this project. Her familiarity with the City of Shakopee, combined with Foth's extensive experience, will benefit the City. The proposal follows the requested services discussed in our August 10th conference call and your email of August 16th. We have provided our project approach, scope of service, project descrip- tions and resumes, along with our cost estimate and project schedule. If you have any questions, please give me a call to discuss. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks again for this opportunity. Sincerely, Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC Warren A. Shuros Tracy Coenen Schaefer Client Director Technical Consulting Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC Schaefer Consulting, LLC (651) 288 -8596 (612) 709 -2463 1 1 Project Understanding and Scope of Services Our Understanding of Your Project Shakopee, MN • The City of Shakopee (City) has a contract for refuse, recycling and yard waste col - lection services with Dick's Sanitation that expires on May 31, 2014. The existing con - tract was originally signed in 2001 and has been extended twice. The contract exten- sions were the most cost - effective means at .. - the time to accommodate changes for the needs of the City and for Dick's Sanitation. The City is considering changing to a "single- stream recycling system from the current "dual- stream" system. Such a change will use single - stream rolling carts and may require new trucks. From helping to develop a long -range strategic plan to Dick's approached City staff about converting the City's system to sin - reduce costs and improve your gle- stream and requested another five -year contract extension to imple- ment the new program including purchase of carts and trucks. The City overall solid waste program, prefers to seek competitive proposals for a longer contract rather than to assistance with bidding simply negotiate the extension. and contract development, Beyond consideration of a change to single - stream recycling, there are to helping your organization additional services that the City may consider such as organic waste switch from a manual to a (e.g., separated food waste) collection. Like automated garbage collec- fully automated collection sys tion, single - stream recycling and source separate organic waste collec- tion services are typically provided using automated trucks and rolling tem, Foth can skillfully guide storage carts. The City recognizes that the carts have value beyond the you through the process. end of a typical five -year collection contract and the City is interested in considering options for the City to own the carts. The City has requested consulting assistance for the following: + Review and comment on the City's current contract for improvement opportunities, especially related to single - stream recycling and potential separate organic waste collection, o Identify and help decide the issues that may be specified in a new contract, including single- stream recycling, separate organic waste collection, ownership of carts, materials to be picked up, etc. o Formatting the RFP • Solicitation of RFP respondents • Review of RFPs received, and recommendation for awarding Refuse and Recycling Collection Services Foth Shakopee, MN —September 2012 I -1 • Meetings with City's Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), staff, and City Council as needed. The Foth Project Team is very experienced with this type of project and we are joined in this proposal by Tracy Coenen- Schaefer, who previ- ously worked for the City of Shakopee and was heavily involved in the City's previous refuse contracting processes. We will capitalize on the strengths of the Project Team members to best address the needs of the City. Generally, we will use the Foth member expertise for the techni- cal aspects of the collection services and contracting process and Schae- fer Consulting for familiarity with the City and the previous contracting process. We anticipate some involvement with the City's EAC to collect input on potential service changes. Scope of Services - Steps for Success Task 1 — Project Management and Kick -Off Meeting The Project Team will meet with the City staff to start the project. This meeting will cover the typical project management content and schedule, but also be used to have a preliminary discussion on issues or potential service changes the City may want to consider or have addressed by the EAC. Potential topics include: • Review of the existing RFP and contract to identify and discuss issues • , 4 � J , : � r . a YT�s •. .x 1 i • ?' r 1 Il . � � i I iir„, , • _ . • L Refuse and Recycling Collection Services Foth Shakopee, MN — September 2012 1 -2 .;,,° ±,. tr' „� r" • Single - stream recycling (e.g., current ;, ^ , t �z ;a` t."' ' ' ,� ._ ' c , '< ' <, ... ,41- 1 : landscape of potential service ° 7/If"' 4 , ° 's F'" providers to Shakopee) A `''", .4 ; •' �+ , -� z . ' • Recyclables revenue sharing r• 'r t , . x y E t A-)....0..",...: r hip r 4 ' p ; X4t • ` . » ` `' . . approaches . ► : ,� i Q1.' . >. • Cart purchase options • ' , `- o Separate organic waste collection ..l options r o Unit -based pricing (also known 9 as variable rate pricing or "pay as you throw ") ® Continued waste processing over landfilling • Separating disposal tipping fee charges from the cost of collection service ® Equitable fuel escalator contract provisions III 111 . ® RFP management / communications with prospective proposers * c. Review and make suggested changes to the City's refuse ordinance � ,, + i '` a Expand public education opportunities ® The potential to add City park refuse and recycling pick -up to be ' completed by the hauler but billed to residents >�` l'... l / ), �, o Increases in residential participation incentives 1 0 Potential pros /cons of different billing options (City, SPUC or the �` ;� hauler as well as electronic payment options to include credit cards, PVC tablets and mobile device formats) ® Explore adding more recyclable materials to the contract (i.e. milk cartons, juice boxes, pop and beer boxes) ® Pros and cons of different contract terms (five -years versus seven - years considering amortization of capital costs associated with carts and new trucks) • Improving hauler reporting t / requirements t o Consider radio - frequency i identification (RFID) tags on . _, 4 .. containers - © Evaluate the number of clean up 11 . days lik _ 0 Request a hauler implementation action plan outlining the prospective haulers transition plan Refuse and Recycling Collection Services FOt11 Shakopee, MN — September 2012 V 1 -3 The Project Team will describe each of the potential topics and c To suggest potential pros and cons or the benefits of a particular I lisroxlc: approach. It is anticipated that the City staff will provide guid- ance on the potential issues, whether the change is desired, 1It'l�l I t1 ",4 should be addressed with the EAC, or should not be considered L:T \I UI NG further. MAIN ENTRANCE t *WEST ENTRANCE The typical project management needs will be addressed in this task (progress reports, meeting notes, budget status, etc.). Deliverables • Kick -Off Meeting agenda, background materials, and notes • Kick -Off Meeting attendance • Project management activities throughout the project. Task 2 — Facilitation of the EAC Meetings The City may desire the Project Team to work with the EAC on select top - ics that are of particular interest. The expectation is that the EAC will pro- vide input and /or direction for how , . the select topics are best approached i n Shakopee. The EAC may be able , `; to provide meaningful City resident L r _ �Ft b t _____�� " • .; - ;.. - _ 1 perspectives on discussions about Isur 1 new services such as single - stream recycling and separate organic waste collection, automated equipment, public education and communication 4, °� with residents, residential participation x ti F L ..a *� ��V7 ; _ tik: inceIltives, addition of recycling in the parks, and billing options. The Project Team will prepare background materials on the selected issues, present and explain the issues, facilitate the discussion, and seek direction as appropriate from the EAC. There may be advance direction provided by City staff as to the extent of "leeway" the EAC has on the selected topics. For purposes of the project cost estimate, we assumed there will be two (2) meetings for the Project Team with the EAC. Refuse and Recycling Collection Services Foth Shakopee, MN — September 2012 1 -4 Deliverables o Facilitation of two (2) EAC meetings • Background materials and handouts pertinent to the selected topics pjy Task 3 — Preparation of the RFP and Service of 4 Agreement ;a „ The Project Team will prepare the RFP and accompanying service . ; ,` agreement to be issued by the City. The base documents for the RFP and agreement are anticipated to be a combination of the City's previ- ous RFP and agreement and documents prepared by the Project Team for other projects in different cities. The documents will be provided to the City for review and comment prior to being finalized. The Project Team will follow the City's protocol for issuance of the RFP. Deliverables • Draft and final RFP and Service Agreement documents Task 4 — Solicitation of RFP Respondents After the RFP is issued by the City, the Project Team will lead a Pre - proposal Meeting that will be held by the City for interested haulers. The RFP will be highlighted, key services noted, and the proposal submission requirements will be explained. Questions raised by attend- ees will be addressed to the extent possible at the meeting. The ques- tions will be noted and written answers be made available to potential proposers. Based on the questions received, there may be a need for addenda to be provided during this time period of the RFP process. Deliverables o Attendance at the Pre - proposal meeting. • Addenda as required. � w � x. 11 ir? � y y,[���yyyy (y�p�� , 4 .. rt ' ' tt.GJW� "r . '.. 2""1 W.IITM D111130 Si„ •k:�- i 101 Refuse and Recycling Collection Services \ '/ F Shakopee, MN — September 2012 1 -5 '�„ r - . T ash 5 — Review and Evaluation of Proposals ,. -- The Foth Project Team will work with the City's proposal review team C �,� to review each proposal received based on the Evaluation Process isk_ described in the RFP evaluation criteria. It is anticipated that cost will not be the only criterion, but rather the criteria will include experience, is technical approach, management capabilities, and perhaps environ- ; mental considerations that all taken together represent the "Best Value" (11 , , C to the City. Depending on the number of proposals received and their dJ relative competitiveness, the City many or may not choose to eliminate IN some proposals from the detailed evaluation process due to high cost or -.,- " '- k some other criteria. Each member of the proposal review team will review each of the pro- r posals and identify questions or clarifications that are required in each i"t 4 , • r ( proposal. These questions will be compiled by the Foth Project Team �, : ` - and submitted to each proposer to prepare a written response. Inter- _ " ` r r ` f views of the companies can be very helpful in determining how well '— 1 i they will perform during the contract. These are typically held with the i '� ‘tw / i City's evaluation team and the Foth Project Team with the companies ,� '�l tY Project p k explaining their proposal and management capabilities. They will also • " i 4 ' k respond to the written questions as well as any that arise during the 7/ 1 c ?4+ `)' / V interview 1,, — The Foth Project Team will complete the financial evaluation of each " ..„. of the proposals and summarize the results for the City's evaluation team. Based on all the information received in the proposals, questions/ answers, and interviews, the City's evaluation team will score each of J - . iii.. 7 / the proposals independently, being consistent in their scoring method - " _ "` ology. The Foth Project Team will compile the individual evaluation team member rankings, prepare a written report of the procurement ; �, �, + proc and recommendation for consideration by the City Council. If .,..„,,,I , desired, a F Project Team member will attend the City Council meet - r � ` y^ ing to present the recommendation and answer any questions. 1 Deliverables �,.^ • Questions /requests for clarifications on each proposal and a compiled list of questions for each proposer (budget assumption of _ four proposals requiring detailed review). • Attendance at the interviews (budget assumption no more than 4 interviews all held on the same day). • Financial evaluation of the proposals including the numerical ranking of each proposal and a summary of the results. • Compiled evaluation rankings from City evaluation team. Refuse and Recycling Collection Services a IOth Shakopee, MN — September 2012 V 1 -6 o Written summary and recommendation for City Council consideration. • Council sleeting attendance (if desired). �,...,/ Owner Responsibilities The City is responsible for the following information and activities: i l , 1 ,,„..• _ a • Provide a single contact source for review, continent, and decision making on all issues related to the project, `` + Participation in the Project Kick -Off meeting, allin • Electronic copy of the previous RFP and contract document, ~ • Arrangements for EAC meetings, including setting EAC meeting agenda ''' 1 o Provision of necessary updated data for the RFP such as number and type of household counts, recyclables characterization (e.g., tonnages, composition) and input to the service requirements to be included in the RFP, • Necessary legal review of the RFP and Service Agreement, • Issuance of the RFP and Service Agreement via the City's standard process, • Arrangements for the Pre - proposal meeting, o Issuance of addenda prepared by Foth (as necessary), �,', t f' 1 ., { ,,', ,, ,r ,. ® City Evaluation team participation in the review and ranking r,' • as �`� ‘' :, ;(' process, and .g's ", ,':.�"� i, ,' t', '� • ' ,1 © Review of the summary report and recommendation. l i , } * . . 'c3 L , ,,„ Mi /1111111111111 \ t Refuse and Recycling Collection Services Shakopee, MN — September 2012 1 -7