Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 46 <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT 2 <br /> <br />the beginning that any proposer choosing to protest the process would have ample opportunity <br />when the individual member agencies considered the reconunendatiol1 resulting from the RJ::"p <br />process. <br /> <br />Comment #10 <br />Page 3 - "Selecting the Collection Servites Contract' section <br />The Grand Jury report states: <br /> <br />"8. The new COl1tract was designed for ease of oversight. " <br /> <br />This statctnent is incorrect. The new collection services franchise agreement(s) are written to be <br />comprehensive with a high degree of clarity to ensure minimal opportunity for disputes. In <br />addition, the new services are more complex than the current services, the reporting requirements <br />are significantly expanded and improved, as are the public education and outreach requirements, <br />liquidated damages, and the performance incentives and disincentives provisions are also new. In <br />fact, the new franchise agreements are significantly more complex and oversight or management of <br />these agreements will be more arduous than the current agreements which are lacking in numerous <br />respects. In addition, the relationship of one company providing the collection services and another <br />operating the facility where the materials are to be delivered, also increases the complexity of the <br />agreements and management requirements. <br /> <br />One area of the franchise agreements that is significantly improved with regard to "oversight," is in <br />the area of compensation paid to the contractor. The current cost-plus form of compensation that <br />applies to the agreements with Allied is time-consuming and cosdy, and the results are unpredictable <br />with regard to the amount of compensation due to Allied annually, that in turn results in uncertainty <br />in rates. The new compensation adjustments are highly formulaic and will be done in house by the <br />SBW1vfA, thus saving approximately $200,000 in consultant fees annually. In addition, the fixed <br />price compensation model which the new contracts are based on will result in predictable rate <br />mcreases. <br /> <br />Comment #11 <br />Page 3 - (~electing the CoUection S erot'ces Contract" section <br />The Grand Jury report States: <br /> <br />('9. In the current SBWMA contract, Allied t'()liects the garbage and also operates the Shorew'!Y Facility <br />where the garbage is sorted and processed In the new contract, the operatio11 of the collection and <br />processing will be split between two J'Cparale companies. " <br /> <br />It should be clarified that each Member Agency has an individual franchise. Technically, garbage is <br />not sorted, it is transferred to a landf1ll. Recyclable materials are sorted and processed. <br /> <br />Comment #12 <br />Page 3 - '~electing the Collection Services Contract" section <br />On page 3, the Grand Jury report states: <br /> <br />10. The tolleelion company can increase its profit by lowering costs and meeting a specified diZJernon <br />percentage. The facility operator can increase its Profit by inmasing revenues from reryclabies and is <br />dependent on the collector fo bn.ng rtrydabks to the fadliry in good condition. <br /> <br />The first sentence may prove to be correct; however, the two separate components of it need to be <br />put in context. The idea that the company can "increase its profit by lowering costs" is certainly <br /> <br />SBWM~A Grand Jury Response_Addendum 2.doc <br /> <br />Page 5 of 17 <br />