AgdaPkt 2009-08-24 clsd and reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 22 ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment 1 March 23, 2009 Hilary Gans South Bayside Waste Management Authority 610 Elm St. Suite 202 San Carlos) CA 94070 RE: Evaluation and Selection Committee Reports Dear Hilary: Hudson Baylor strongly disagrees with the Staff recommendation in the recently issued Evaluation and Selection Committee reports. and with the basis for the recommendation. We . believe that the facts, as laid out in your report, and as further elaborated below, should fead to your choice of Hudson Baylor-to operate the Shoreway Environmental Center. As stated in your. report, the decision is based solely on your calculation of the cost differences between our proposal and SBR's. We want to provide you .and the local elected officials with a more accurate and factual analysis with updated information. To summarize, we are confident that our commodity sales structure will generate a minimum of $700,000 in Incremental revenue to the Authority; that our transfer station diversion plan will generate at feast $200,000 in cost avoidance, and that a fair presentation of our labor position results in at teast $800,000 of cost equalization. In total, the swing in benefits to the SBWMA and its member cities is at least $1..7 million in HBC's favor. Commodity sales can be a complicat~d issue, but the numbers under this contract are straIghtforward. SBR clearly provided a formula to you within the last several weeks, tying their prices to OBM LA Export prices (an indicator that tias only included ONP Export since January , 2009). We provided a comparable formula tied to OBM SF High prices in.our original bid. Our formula is 08M SF High +$10. Analyzing the worksheet titled "Exhibit BIf in the report package results in SBR's formula being approximately OBM LA Export Average ..$18.50 (its formula, appears to have several moving' components) but the example shown calculates to $18.50 below). The table shown in E.xhibit 1 in the appendix to this letter outlines the result of the two formulas applied to the February 7 OBM data used in SBR's example (leaving aside any floor price issues for the moment). HBC's formula actually results in higher revenue for the same tons. Applying this formula to the first quarter of 2009 (the only time that it is possible to apply SBR's formula) results in HBC generating an incremental $57)000 in sales revenue in the quarter, or approximately $225,000 annualized. Assuming that we are over the revenue guarantee, this would generate an incremental $170,000 to SBWMA. Moreover, we ,learned that SBR now has a floor pricing arrangement to cover half the fiber volume at the MRF. HBC, as you know) has an agreement with ACN that provides floor pricing for all fiber tons (as well as for plastics). . Up to this point, we and ACN have not divulged the prices for proprietary and competitive reasons. However, with the recommendation report out, ACN has now agreed to let us disclose that our floor prices for fiber (GNP and eCC) are OOper ton. We ~re providing these floor prices at this time so we can further explain our position to 18