Trashtalk:

Conclusions 17

• CL1 Page 2
  The proposers will be held to their bid assumptions during the contract. For example, if a company states that the price of gas is $ 2.50 a gallon in its bid, and the price of gas goes up, the base contractual obligation will not change. Fluctuations are limited to some CPI- 2 type index. Presumably, the company will buy, or has bought, oil futures that secure the price.
• CL2 Page 3
  In order to submit a proposal, the competitors had to agree not to appeal the process.
• CL3 Page 3
  The new contract was designed for ease of oversight.
• CL4 Page 3
  In the current SBWMA contract, Allied collects the garbage and also operates the Shoreway Facility where the garbage is sorted and processed. In the new contract, the operation of the collection and processing will be split between two separate companies.
• CL5 Page 16
  The structure of the Evaluation and Selection Committees lent itself to the appearance of undue influence.
• CL6 Page 16
  Whether or not elected officials from the member agencies are on the SBWMA Board of Directors, these elected officials are ultimately responsible for all actions taken by the SBWMA.
• CL7 Page 16
  After four years of preparation, staff time, and consultant fees, the RFP process was poorly executed.
• CL8 Page 16
  The structure of the Evaluation and Selection Committees lent itself to the appearance of undue influence.
• CL9 Page 16
  Whether or not elected officials from the member agencies are on the SBWMA Board of Directors, these elected officials are ultimately responsible for all actions taken by the SBWMA.
• CL10 Page 16
  After four years of preparation, staff time, and consultant fees, the RFP process was poorly executed. Response – Conclusions #1 & #3: Conclusions 1 and 3 are unfounded, and the SBWMA strongly disagrees with the statements. The SBWMA and Member Agencies went to great lengths to ensure that open, transparent, competitive and effective procurement processes were pursued. The SBWMA and its Member Agencies initiated the Collection Services and Facility Operations Services request for proposals (RFP) process in July 2005 to plan future programs and services, and select future contractors. The decision to proceed with the RFP process was made in concurrence by all 12 Member Agencies of the SBWMA. One of the primary reasons was the fact that none of the existing contracts for Collection Services and Facility Operations Services had ever been subject to a competitive procurement/review process. Another reason was the declining performance of the incumbent collection/operator contractor. It should be noted that the contract with the SBWMA to operate the Shoreway facility and the twelve individual contracts with the Member Agencies to provide Solid Waste collection services represent perhaps the largest exclusive contracts of their nature in the country. As such, this process has been closely monitored and highly anticipated by many in the solid waste industry. Feedback received from many Member Agencies and other jurisdictions praised the SBWMA RFP process as being one of the most thorough they had ever seen. Most importantly, the RFP process was lauded by the proposers and other stakeholders. It was only after the release of the selection results that a few of the companies who were not selected began questioning the process and the results. This is an unfortunate outcome of many public solid waste procurement processes – and one that is not unique to the SBWMA. It is perhaps not totally unexpected in light of the significance of some of these contracts and efforts and costs expended by the proposing companies. The SBWMA’S RFP process entailed a four-year period for planning, soliciting, evaluating and selecting the future contractors to ensure that the Member Agencies’ staff and elected officials, potential proposers, other stakeholders and the public had multiple opportunities for review and input. The SBWMA’s goal was to select the best companies through a detailed and open evaluation process of the responses that could provide the desired services in the most cost- effective and environmentally superior manner. The SBWMA strongly believes this goal was achieved with the two companies selected. SBWMA Grand Jury Response_Addendum 1.doc Page 7 of 9 To ensure that the RFP process for both services was conducted with integrity and transparency, input was solicited from elected officials, potential proposers, consultants and other stakeholders on draft copies of the RFP documents. The final RFPs issued incorporated this valuable input, and each was a comprehensive document that clearly and concisely detailed the rights reserved by the SBWMA and Member Agencies, and the future companies, how the evaluations would proceed, the make-up of the evaluation teams, the specific evaluation criteria and distribution of evaluation points, and specifically how items such as exceptions or alternative proposals were to be submitted and the implications for not complying with these requirements. The RFPs were issued in November 2007 after a thorough review and approval process that included a governing body resolution from each SBWMA Member Agency. A pre-proposal meeting was attended by all proposers. Several necessary addenda were subsequently issued providing clarifications and improvements to the RFP processes. Four responses to the Collection Services RFP and seven to the Facility Operations RFP were received in March 2008. During the proposal evaluation process, all of the proposers were interviewed and numerous site visits conducted by the respective RFPs Evaluation Committee members. A thorough litigation history review and analysis was conducted by outside counsel. Each proposer provided public presentations in support of its proposals. The RFPs prescribed that an Evaluation Committee and Selection Committee for the Collection Services procurement, and a separate Evaluation Committee and Selection Committee for the Facility Operations Services would be created to review and evaluate the proposals. SBWMA purposefully created two separate committees for each RFP comprised of different individuals to ensure a checks-and-balance approach to selecting the next service providers. Once again, it is important to note that these documents were vetted over several months and ultimately approved via resolution by each governing body of the SBWMA Member Agencies. The Evaluation Committees’ role was to conduct a detailed evaluation of the proposals, rank proposals, and provide comparative descriptions of the proposals. The Selection Committees were tasked with reviewing the proposals and the evaluation summary information presented by their respective Evaluation Committee, requesting additional data and analysis as necessary, and developing their recommendations for consideration by the SBWMA Board. All four committees were provided with clear guidelines on how to proceed with the evaluations and scoring. These guidelines were based on the detailed criteria and maximum scoring that was prescribed in the RFP documents for the proposers to ensure that the evaluations were independent, thorough and fair. The SBWMA Board was tasked with reviewing the Selection Committees’ separate
• CL11 Page 46
  Key Personnel Qualifications. Extent and relevance of the qualifications and experience of key personnel proposed for the transition team and on-going management of the SBWMA collection operations.
• CL12 Page 46
  Past Performance Record. Review of company’s history with litigation and regulatory action (e.g., nature of past and pending civil, legal, regulatory, and criminal actions; history and nature of payments of liquidated damages); regulatory compliance related to equipment and facilities including compliance with land use permits, storm water discharge permits, state highway requirements, etc.).
• CL13 Page 46
  Financial Stability. Financial strength and ability of company to acquire equipment and provide financial assurance of performance based on review of its audited financial statements and its proposed financing plan and the relationship of the SBWMA contract to the company’s total annual revenues.
• CL14 Page 46
  Jurisdiction Satisfaction. Satisfaction of company’s references with the services received in the past 10 years (including, but not limited to, implementation, customer service, call center, billing, payment of fees, reporting, and the handling of contractual issues). 6.2.3 Proposal for Collection Services (150 points)
• CL15 Page 47
  Potential Collection Impacts. Compatibility of plans for vehicle compliance with State of California Air Resources Board rules; ability to respond to issues identified during the environmental review, compliance, and permitting process associated with the development of new facilities (if any are to be developed), and hauling impacts (in terms of total annual miles traveled compared to others) related to distance between vehicle maintenance and parking facilities and Shoreway facility.
• CL16 Page 47
  Additional Member Agency Services. Reasonableness and reliability of proposed collection methods, technology, equipment, and containers; reasonableness of productivity and operating assumptions (i.e., number of routes, route drivers, route hours, stops per route, and other operating statistics) for: a. San Mateo County service area b. Atherton c. Hillsborough d. Redwood City e. Burlingame f. Foster City g. City of San Mateo
• CL17 Page 3
  The collection company can increase its profit by lowering costs and meeting a specified diversion percentage. The facility operator can increase its profit by increasing revenues from recyclables and is dependent on the collector to bring recyclables to the facility in good condition. The first sentence may prove to be correct; however, the two separate components of it need to be put in context. The idea that the company can “increase its profit by lowering costs” is certainly SBWMA Grand Jury Response_Addendum 2.doc Page 5 of 17 correct. However, the franchise agreement is extremely comprehensive in scope and the penalties are severe for non-compliance in providing the required high level of services or for lapses in service. The idea that the company can increase its profit by “meeting a specified diversion percentage” is correct; however, this statement requires clarification. The incentive payment for increasing diversion is related to an increase in overall diversion. Decreases in both commercial sector and residential sector diversion will result in disincentive payments from contractor to the agencies. Once again, the future system that will be put in place emphasizes the SBWMA and its Member Agencies commitment and the value these communities place on diversion of solid waste from landfill, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and the true environmental leadership that is being pursued. Comment #13 Page 3 – “Evaluation and Selection Committees” section The Grand Jury report states: “The SBWMA divided the judging process for the Collections Services Contract into two committees: an Evaluation Committee and a Selection Committee. The Evaluation Committee analyzed and scored the proposals. The Selection Committee considered the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee and selected a Collection Services Contractor.” The first sentence implies that the SBWMA unilaterally “divided the judging process” into two committees and the second and third sentences wholly discounted the process and actual roles and responsibilities of the Evaluation and Selection Committees. The RFP clearly prescribed how and by whom the proposals would be evaluated and the roles and responsibilities of both committees in subsections 6.1-3 of the RFP, as follows: “6.1.1 Evaluation and Selection Process An Evaluation Team and Selection Committee will be assembled by the SBWMA and Member Agencies. The Evaluation Team, which may include industry consultants, other industry experts, and Member Agency and SBWMA staff, will conduct a detailed evaluation of the proposals, rank proposals, and provide comparative descriptions of the proposals. The SBWMA Executive Director, with assistance from Evaluation Team as needed, will present the evaluation results to the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee will likely include: SBWMA staff, SBWMA Board Members, and high-level Member Agency staff. The Selection Committee will review the proposals and the evaluation summary information presented by the Evaluation Team, request additional data and analysis as necessary, and develop its

Comments 2

• CO1 Page 20
  Aug 4, 2008 6:00 AM (327 days ago) by Mike Rosenberg, The Examiner SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED EMAIL STORY PRINT STORY » 327 days ago: Yard waste wasted « Related Topics: San Mateo County (Juan Carlos Pometta Betancourt/Special to The Examiner) Down in the dumps: The South Bayside Waste Management Authority is asking Allied Waste to pay back residents for composting services it allegedly did not provide. San Mateo County (Map, News) - The money and work of environmentally minded Peninsula residents have been partially wasted after Allied Waste garbage trucks were found to have dumped tons of recyclable material into a landfill, authorities said recently. Allied Waste, which provides garbage services from Burlingame to the southern San Mateo County border, has dumped up to 64,722 tons of plant materials into the Ox Mountain landfill near Half Moon Bay during the last four years, according to the South Bayside Waste Management Authority. Allied is contractually obligated to send the yard trimmings to its Newby Island compost site in Milpitas so the material can be recycled and used in local gardens and agriculture. Now the South Bayside Waste Management Authority, which oversees Allied in San Mateo County, has demanded the garbage company pay back its residents between $560,000 and $1.8 million for the composting services. Allied Waste charges residents a fee for composting plants from yard trimmings. The exact fine would depend on the precise number of tons Allied did not divert to composting. SBWMA board member Diane Dryer said neglecting to compost yard trimmings increases local greenhouse gas emissions. “It would probably be a good idea to think about banning plant materials altogether from landfills due to the global warming problems,” Dryer said. If Allied refuses to pay, the SBWMA said it would seek legal action based on the contract violation. “This material was set out for recycling and it was put in a landfill. It’s a breach of public trust,” said Hilary Gans, SBWMA’s facility operations contract manager. To conduct the investigation, the SBWMA in April hired Walnut Creek-based consulting agency HF&H, which presented a nine-page report on the accusations to the group’s board of directors recently. Evan Boyd, Allied Waste’s general manager for the county, admitted some of the plant material did end up in the landfill but argued the SBWMA’s numbers may be inflated a little bit. Boyd acknowledged his company dumped 14,159 tons of plants into a landfill in 2005 and 2006. He said his company faced an unusual situation those years, due to the relocation and shrinking 20 of their compost pad. Allied contacted the SBWMA board about the infractions but the two could not reach a solution, he said. “We’ve got to sit down and figure out if there’s going to be a compromise made,” Boyd said. Despite the controversy, Boyd said the two groups still have a decent working relationship. The dispute between Allied and SBWMA comes as the two prepare to part ways on the local recycling center, a $15 million contract. Allied, which has operated the county’s Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center in San Carlos, will be let go by the SBWMA when its contract expires at the end of 2010. mrosenberg@sfexaminer.com Uncovering the compost The South Bayside Waste Management Authority has demanded that Allied Waste pay back residents for composting service payments after Allied was found to have dumped recyclable material into landfills. 64,722 Plant tons dumped into landfill that should have been composted 14,159 Plant tons Allied admitted it dumped into landfill 4 Years Allied dumped plants into landfill 2 Years Allied admitted it dumped plants into landfill $560,000 to $1.8 million Fine levied on Allied Waste 12 County cities or agencies that supplied the plant material Source: South Bayside Waste Management Authority, Allied Waste 21 Attachment 3 22 23
• CO2 Page 29
  ADDENDUM 1 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.