AgdaPkt 2009-04-13 clsd and jnt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

88 Page 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACK G R OU N D................ .......... ............... ....... ................... .............. ........................ ........... ........................... ...... ...4 PROPOSER SCORI NG RESULTS .......... ................................. .......................................... ............................... 5 COST EVALUATION ...... ...... .............. ..... ................. ....... ......................... ..... ....................... ......... ......... ........ 7 REASONABLENESS I TESTING & FINDINGS ................................ ......................................... .......... ............. ..... 7 o RIGINAL PROPOSALS AN D REVISIO NS .........................................................................................................8 SOUTH BAY AND HUDSON BAYLOR - DIFFERENTIATING FACTORS .................................................................8 Strengths And Weaknesses....................................................................... ........................................... 8 SOUTH BAY RECYCLING - ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ............... ........ ............. ....... ..... .... ..... ........ ........... ............. 10 Qualifications And Experience................................ ....... ........................... .......................................... 10 Technical Proposal...................... ............................... ............................................. ............................ 10 SOUTH BAY RECYCLING - REVISED PROPOSAL .......................................................................................... 11 HUDSON BAYLOR - ORIGINAL PROPOSAL .... .............. ....... ..... ........... ..................... ....... .... ......... .... ............. 12 Qualifications And Experience. ................................ ..... ........ .................... ..................... ....... .............. 12 Technical Proposal............ ......................................... ............................... ................ .......................... 12 HUDSON BAYLOR - REVISED PROPOSAL ..... .......... ...... ............... ......... ....................... ...... ........ .................. 13 C RITI CAL ISS U ES ... .................. ........ ...... ...... ................. ........ ... ..... ......... ....... ................................. ........................15 ANALYSIS OF COMMODITY REVENUES AND THE REVENUE GUARANTEE ...................................................... 15 RESTATEMENT OF THE BUYBACK CENTER COMMODITY REVENUE AND IMPACT ON BEST's RANKING ............19 ASSESSMENT OF WASTE SOLUTIONS GROUP (WSG) CAPABILITy............................................................... 20 HBC's CONSIDERATION OF BEST AS A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR TRANSFER STATION OPERATIONS ................21 OPERATING COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO PROJECTED TRANSFER TRUCK PAYLOADS ..........................................21 SBR's ABILITY TO PERFORM SERVICE WITH PROPOSED PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT ................................23 COMMUNITY RECYCLING - PERMITS & COMPLIANCE ISSUES .......................................................................24 STATUS OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH LOCAL 350.........................................................25 FACILITY MASTER PLAN IMPACT ON PROPOSED COSTS AND OPERATIONS ...................................................26 TRANSFER STATION AND SELF HAUL DIVERSION PLANS .......... ................ ............ ................... ............. ........26 ENHANCEMENTS........................................................................................................ ....... ......................... 26 COST ANALySiS.............................................................................................. ............. ............................. 27 Hudson Baylor Corporation....... ......................................................................... ........ ............ ........ ..... 27 South Bay Recycling............ ........... ..... ~................................................................ .............................. 27 MRF DESIGN & EQUIPMENT EVALUATION ....................................................................................................29 EQUIPMENT SELECTION OVERViEW................................................. ........................... ...... .......................... 29 MRF System Considerations .......... .... .......................... .......... .......... .................... .............................. 29 Screening Technology............ ........................................................................................................ .... 30 Optical Sorting Technology.. ........ ................ .... ........ ...... ... ...................... ...... ................... .......... ......... 30 System Design and Materials Handling ....................... ........ ........... ...................... ...... ........................ 30 Bulk Handling Systems (BHS) vs. Van DyklBollegraaf (VDB)............................................................ 30 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF PROPOSED MRF SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 32 South Bayside Recycling, LLC. with Bulk Handling Systems, Inc. .....................................................32 Functionality and Capability............ ................................................... ................................................. 33 Hudson Baylor Company, LLG. with Van Dyk Baler I Bollegraaf .......................................................34 Functionality and Capability............ ............................................. .............................. ......... ........... ..... 36 COMPARISON OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS .................................................................................................... 38 SBWMA - EC Report Page 2 1/15f2009