BPWS Accepts Mayor's Recommendation to Award Sanitation Contract to Clark-Floyd Landfill/Eco-Tech
Say so long to the acrimony and give James Garner his due. Despite the suspicion, Garner recommended and the New Albany Board of Public Works and Safety has concurred in choosing to award Clark-Floyd Landfill LLC/Eco-Tech LLC the contract to collect residential trash beginning on Jan. 2, 2006.
I have the BPWS memorandum in front of me and am analyzing it now. But here are the high points:
* The bid selected charges $12.90 per household, slightly under the current user fee charged to residential customers with one can.
* The bidder intends to employ most, if not all, of the current employees of the Sanitation Department.
* No immediate increase in user fees will be necessary.
* In the fifth out-year, the bid is for $15.68, based on a (high) CPI increase of 5% per year.
Here were the criteria used to make the selection:
1. Will the bidder retain or offer jobs to current employees? C-F was the only bidder who scored 10 points.
2. Will the bidder be able to start by Jan. 1? C-F and Rumpke were the only bidders who could.
3. To what extent does the bidder plan to utilize the Clark-Floyd landfill (where the city has a commitment to deliver 16,000 tons, minimum)? C-F was the only bidder taking 100% to C-F Landfill - kind of a no-brainer - but the other bidders were seeking additional profits by using competing landfills.
4. Will bidder eliminate risk of future losses to city? All bidders scored the max.
5. How does the bid address the payoff of truck and container costs within the current rate? Neither ID nor C-F came in with bid levels that paid them off, but each left some of the user fee available for equipment cost retirement.
6. Does the bid maintain the current level (amount) of items picked up? C-F is the only bidder who could promise that.
7. Does the bid address the pickup of large items? Only C-F said yes.
8. How often will recycling pickup take place? It appears that recycling will only be picked up twice a month (or perhaps every other week).
9. Which bid offers the lowest rate in the fifth year out? C-F ranked second here.
With 9 questions, the preferred response would earn 10 points per question. C-F scored 80.5. ID scored 46. Rumpke scored 31.5.
Watch for more details and comment in Wednesday's New Albany Tribune...and please feel free to resume posting here or in our conversation below about the good and bad of 2005.
I have the BPWS memorandum in front of me and am analyzing it now. But here are the high points:
* The bid selected charges $12.90 per household, slightly under the current user fee charged to residential customers with one can.
* The bidder intends to employ most, if not all, of the current employees of the Sanitation Department.
* No immediate increase in user fees will be necessary.
* In the fifth out-year, the bid is for $15.68, based on a (high) CPI increase of 5% per year.
Here were the criteria used to make the selection:
1. Will the bidder retain or offer jobs to current employees? C-F was the only bidder who scored 10 points.
2. Will the bidder be able to start by Jan. 1? C-F and Rumpke were the only bidders who could.
3. To what extent does the bidder plan to utilize the Clark-Floyd landfill (where the city has a commitment to deliver 16,000 tons, minimum)? C-F was the only bidder taking 100% to C-F Landfill - kind of a no-brainer - but the other bidders were seeking additional profits by using competing landfills.
4. Will bidder eliminate risk of future losses to city? All bidders scored the max.
5. How does the bid address the payoff of truck and container costs within the current rate? Neither ID nor C-F came in with bid levels that paid them off, but each left some of the user fee available for equipment cost retirement.
6. Does the bid maintain the current level (amount) of items picked up? C-F is the only bidder who could promise that.
7. Does the bid address the pickup of large items? Only C-F said yes.
8. How often will recycling pickup take place? It appears that recycling will only be picked up twice a month (or perhaps every other week).
9. Which bid offers the lowest rate in the fifth year out? C-F ranked second here.
With 9 questions, the preferred response would earn 10 points per question. C-F scored 80.5. ID scored 46. Rumpke scored 31.5.
Watch for more details and comment in Wednesday's New Albany Tribune...and please feel free to resume posting here or in our conversation below about the good and bad of 2005.
posted by All4Word at 11:18 AM
7 Comments:
Tim does point out an important point - the proposal by the AFSCME (the union) was evaluated by the same criteria.
But that proposal was not a bid as the union did not propose to take over the operations. Their proposal was, in fact, the OTHER option - contract the work out, or keep it in house.
That proposal did not account for paying off equipment, would not have started in a timely manner, would not indemnify the city from future losses, and projected the highest future rate in the fifth year.
Anyone who looked at the AFSCME proposal handed out at the last city council meeting would have seen that it also contemplated rather severe cuts in pay for all the current workers.
Dear All4,
In your posting on the bids, you made an incorrect entry on questions 3,6 and 7. The Clark-Floyd Landfill,LLC/Eco-Tech,LLC and the Union bids were the same on thoses questions as ranked by the City of New Albany.
Maury
Right, Maury. But the union did not submit a bid. You and Tim correctly point out the fact that the administration did give a fair evaluation to the AFSCME proposal to keep the operation in-house.
Do you think the workers approved the proposal, which would have required severe pay cuts to the workers?
Tim,
AFSCME did score a zero on the risk question, but again, they did not submit a bid. I noted the "bidders" responses.
And Maury, same answer. AFSCME did not bid, they recommended a different course of action from contracting the work out and eliminating the risk to the city of future losses. Even with their proposed rate increase, the workers would have had to take a pay cut, too.
Ceece, if the city accepts the bid, it is the contract. Clark-Floyd Landfill LLC and its operator, Eco-Tech LLC, have agreed to employ every current worker (27 of them) who wants the job. And I understand the payscale is pretty much the same - no pay cuts, as under the union proposal.
Keeping these folks employed has always been the priority. Without that commitment, I don't think anyone, including the mayor, would have even considered contracting the work out.
I said all along that I believed he was committed to fixing the problem AND protecting those paychecks. Many doubted that.
Today's selection is the proof in the pudding.
Albeit that I am coming in late on this and probably a few other issues it appears that this bid award lands in the positive progressive movement column. Hopefully this will serve as a springboard for forward motion of other such developments!
Wasn't this the part where Dan Coffey was supposed to come swooping in to save us all?
I seem to remember him making a big deal about a better way several months ago, when he and some others agreed to think about it some more to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.
I wonder what he's doing today.
Post a Comment
<< Home