|
<br />88
<br />Page 39
<br />
<br />Facility Operations Contractor Selection Committee Report dated January 15, 2009
<br />
<br />Updated pages 15-19
<br />
<br />Figure A
<br />
<br />$12.000,000 ~-. .--------- . . .-----... - -- -.-- ---. - -- --...-". ---- - _._.h._. ---------- --:,.~,../":i~:::~~~1
<br />
<br />
<br />$11,500,000 ..__ .._..______________.__...__ --.-.---------..--..---- - ....-.----.-.-..."-- ____u_ .--~i)i!!..---u- - -------
<br />...IJ' 11,364.687
<br />l ~I~j · i
<br />! .,iiP~ 11,284,58Y
<br />$11,000,000 1---.-..---.-.-...--.--..--....-..---.-.--..--....--...........-....-.-.......---.-..--..-..-...-..-------;;,~Vl."..-.-----.-----.--. ...--...------.-----;
<br />
<br />i .*;"10732287 I
<br />! ....".,. " ~ 10,652.187 J
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />I:::~~;~~:~I~ ~'~-~1
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />.i!:' $9,500,000 .__.._.._ ..-..-- ---- -..- ---- m.. _ . ..__m _ _m _ -- .____. . __.___u_ ...--.. .. - -- J
<br />:g 0 9,387.387 I
<br />E !
<br />e · 9,147,075 :
<br />8 $9,000,000 l-..---..----.--.. -.-..-.-----...... ------.. .--.--".----..-- --------....----.-.............----------..-...---.-------.----.----...----......'''--''''''1
<br />
<br />
<br />I i
<br />S8,600,Ooo --;-----.---..--....-.... -..---. _________0.....8.5.14,67-5----.-....-------..----..---..-----.--...--------------..--.-..-1
<br />
<br />$8.000,000 --~---....-----. --.--.---.-------.-. ...----. ..------..--....-------..---.--..-..--.-...-......--.....---------.--..--..-------.........--.......---------...-..--..~
<br />i · 7,862,275 I
<br />i
<br />$7,500,000 +---.....--.-.--..-----....- ----- --------.---.--..--------..-----. .........----------...-----.. .....-...---..--..-----.....--..---m-..-....---............""i
<br />I
<br />i SBR . ~ 7.250,000
<br />L- 7,250,000
<br />
<br />$7,000,000 --.......--...-----.---...--"".."...--..-..-r--------------.---.----..--------.--------,.,,-.~-....-..-..---,.---......,--..----.- .,...-.------.....~.--.--------i
<br />$0.00 $85.98 $95.98 $105.98 $115.98 S119.78 $129,78 $139.78 $149.78
<br />Price per Ton
<br />
<br />It is important to consider in the evaluation of th e two short listed firms the ability of one
<br />company to market commodities at a higher price per ton than another company. In
<br />information provided by the two companies, a substantial difference in reported
<br />commodity sale revenues exists between the two proposing companies. In the original
<br />proposals, HBC referenced an average material sale price of $203.34 per ton compared
<br />to a material sale price of $228.49 per ton by S BR. In fact during the fourth quarter of
<br />2007, SBR's commodity prices were $25.15 per ton, or 12.4% higher than those of HBC.
<br />
<br />If this historic commodity sales inform ation reported by the two com panies can be used
<br />to forecast future sales prices, then SBR would generate m ore commodity revenues
<br />than HBC. This higher sales revenue by SBR could have the impact of canceling out the
<br />higher Revenue Guarantee offered by HBC. For example, SBR could "catch up" to the
<br />higher Revenue Guarantee offered by HBC, if the commodity prices they obtain are
<br />$11.27 per ton higher than HBC 's (this is computed by taking the $8.45 per ton
<br />difference previously cited and dividing it by .75). Hence if SBR is able to command
<br />commodity prices of $1 :)1.0~.~gJ)5. per ton or higher ($119.78 + $11.27), then SBR
<br />would "catch-up" with HaC's Revenue Guarantee.
<br />
<br />Ooeratina Cost
<br />
<br />Another factor in considering the Revenue Guarantee offered by the companies is to
<br />consider it in relation to the company's proposed annua I operating costs. In the case of
<br />HBC, HaC's proposal will cost the SBWMA $2.2gJY1-i-:-&2-M per year more than SBR in
<br />
<br />Commodity Revenue Section Uodated 3-30-09 ,docG<:1FAffiGfHt~~ 4/1/200~-oog. 9:23 AM+a~2-P-M
<br />2
<br />
|