AgdaPkt 2007-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A An overview of the contractor selection process, including a schedule, was provided to Page 2 fihe Council in May 2QQ6, which identified seven milesfiones at which the Council would be asked for camments ar decisions. On August 28, 2006 staff provided Council with an update on the development of the RFP for colfection services and requested that Council provide direction on haw to proceed. At fihe canclusion of #his meeting, Council expressed concerns aboufi #he following items: • Labor policies • The proposed code of good conduct • Alternative fuel vehicles • SBWMA ownership and leasing of collection vehicles Sta�# conducted further rese�rch c�n these items and reported back to Counci! on September 25, 2�06 at which time Council gave staff direction on how to represent #he Council's interests at the SBWMA's October meeting at which the SBWMA Board wouia voie to approve fn� draTi RF�. On October 26, 2006 the SBWMA Board appraved the RFP recommendations to the member agencies regarding future services, contract terms, and competitive proposal guidelines for the RFP process. The elements o# the RFP approved by the SBWMA Board were cansistent with the preferred policy directions expressed by the Council. Member agencies were fihen asked to adopt a resolu#ion commitfiing to the SBWMA RFP process and approving the SBWMA recommended core service package. In summary, #he core SG'NiCG package fior residential collection services includes: weekly salid waste, single stream recyclables, and organic materials {plant materials and food scraps} coflectian using carts {sizes ranging from 32-96 gallons) and primarily aufiomated collection vehicles. Side or backyard service is considered an optiona! service. All member agencies voted affirmatively to parfiicipate in the RFP process. The City Council adopted this resolution on December 11, 2006. Several of the member agencies agreed to participate in fihe RFP process contingent on special service needs (i.e., Atherton and Hillsborough) being addressed, retaining the right to initiate their own RFP process (i.e., Belmont} and stafiing cancerns regarding the intent of some portions of the contract terms (i.e., West Bay Sanitary District). Since the member agency approvals, SBWMA staff has prepared numerous drafts of the RFP documents. The draft documents have evolved over the past several months based on substantiai input from a technical review committee of consultants, potential proposers, Board members, member agency staff, and outside lega) counse(. SBWMA staff also toured some of the largest material recavery faci(ities (MRF) in Califomia and nationally to gather further informatian. The net effect of this input is thaf staff has made some changes to reduce the compiexity of the RFP's (both callection and operatians) while maintaining the same set af proposed programs and services previousiy approved. The changes are desctibed below in the Anafysis portion of the staff report. Related to the RFP process, the SBWMA Board on April 26, 2007 approved a master plan so staff could move forward with permitting and design work on significant site 2