Laserfiche WebLink
<br />88 <br />Page 45 <br /> <br />and excavators to increase the amount of recovery and reduce the safety risks associated with <br />manual floor sorters. WSG projected transfer payloads that were lower than those proposed by <br />SBR and transport costs that were higher (see Table 8, next page). <br /> <br />More than a year will lapse between the execution of the Operating Agreement and the <br />commencement of facility operations. This will provide the selected companies sufficient time to <br />hire needed personnel, research and select needed equipment, and prepare for operations. <br /> <br />HBC's CONSIDERATION OF BEST AS A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR TRANSFER <br /> <br />STATION OPERATIONS <br /> <br />As stated in above, during the evaluation process, the Evaluation Committee expressed a <br />concern to HBC regarding WSG's transfer station management experience. In response to the <br />SBWMA's concerns, HBC considered partnering opportunities with other firms. HBC solicited a <br />subcontract proposal from BEST for the transfer station operation. After the short list selection, <br />HBC provided the SBWMA an alternative proposal which included BEST as an alternate <br />transfer station operator. In the alternative "BEST plan". HBC/BEST offered: <br /> <br />A detailed transfer station/transportation management plan based heavily upon manual <br />floor sorters and substantially less use of loaders or other mechanical devices (less than <br />WSG) for the recovery of self haul materials. <br /> <br />Higher projected transfer truck payloads. <br /> <br />The addition of seven (7) floor sorters. <br /> <br />A detailed projection of recovery and diversion of additional tonnage from the TS <br />operation. <br /> <br />The alternative plan offered by HBC increased HBC's cost of transfer station operation by <br />approximately $800K annually (an additional $8.0M over the term of the contract). It is <br />suspected that much of the increased costs associated with HBC's addition of BEST as a <br />transfer station/transport subcontractor are from increased transfer station sort labor and Other <br />G&A. <br /> <br />Operating Cost Attributable to Projected Transfer Truck Payloads <br /> <br />Of the total projected first year operating cost difference between HBC and SBR ($1.82M), <br />approximately $750,000 is attributable to differences in projected payloads (Le. the total number <br />of loads needed to transport the various outbound materials) and their associated transport <br />costs. With their revised Cost Form submittal, SBR1s cost of transportation has increased <br />without explanation. Because the company has also added capital costs for rolling stock, it is <br />assumed that they have reduced their payload projection and added one (1) tractor/trailer to <br />transport the additional loads. <br /> <br />Table 8 shows the transportation cost differences between SBR and HBC. The transport costs <br />of HBC and SBR are also compared to those proposed by the current transfer station operated <br />by Allied Waste. <br /> <br />SBWMA - EC Report <br /> <br />Page <br />21 <br /> <br />1/15/2009 <br />