Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2004-03-22 Item 4B - Contract Amendment - Solid Waste Collection with SeaTac DisposalI a/1/ ri• 01 Original Sponsor: I Timeline: Sponsor's Summary: Meeting Date 3/22/04 Meeting Date 3/22/04 Meeting Date 3/22/04 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Council Initials Prepared,§iy/ I Mayor's review 1 Council review F17 I J I fi'n /f I CAS Number 04-038 I Original Agenda Date: March 22, 2004 Agenda Item Title: Solid Waste Contract Extension Admin. The City currently has an Agreement with Sea -Tac Disposal to provide solid waste collection, disposal and recycling services to commercial, multi family, and residential customers. The Agreement expires on March 30, 2005 unless the City exercises its option to renew the Agreement for two more years. Recommendations: Sponsor: Brief viable options and obtain Council decision. Committee: Administration: Cost Impact (if known): None I Fund Source (if known): N/A Action Information Memo dated March 17, 2004 Utilities Committee Minutes from March 16, 2004 Meeting Public Works ITEM NO. b To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Direct Date: March 17, 2004 Subject: Solid Waste Contract Extension INFORMATION MEMO ISSUE Should the City extend the City's solid waste and recycling contract with SeaTac Disposal? BACKGROUND The City currently has an Agreement with SeaTac Disposal to provide solid waste collection, disposal and recycling services to commercial, multi- family, and residential customers. The Agreement is scheduled to expire on March 30, 2005, unless the City exercises its two -year renewal option. DISCUSSION Under the terms of the Agreement, the City could extend the contract for two (2) additional years. Any option to extend the term of the Agreement must be made during the twelve months prior to contract expiration. Two viable options are provided below to assist Council in deciding whether or not the City should exercise its option to grant an extension to the solid waste contract. Option 1: Remain silent and let the contract expire on March 30, 2005. Pro (s): When the contract expires next year, the City could renegotiate the contract with SeaTac Disposal (allowed by the RCW) or compete the requirements. This potentially could reduce solid waste and recycling rates. Con (s): Prior to soliciting bids or proposals, a comprehensive assessment needs to be done to determine what the residents and businesses need for garbage and recycling services. The City needs to capture issues and recommendations from the public through public meetings. It is also important to accomplish a comprehensive comparison of rates and services offered by the garbage haulers within the local area. The comprehensive study and needs assessment should assist staff in framing contract terms and conditions and provide Council with feedback on controversial issues such as mandatory garbage service. If Council chooses this option, the needs assessment, public meetings, and the request for bids (RFB) or request for proposals (RFP) process must begin now to preclude lapse in services. Due to staffing and workload issues, this option may require funding for consultant support. Mayor Mullet Page 2 March 17, 2004 If the contract is not extended, a legal issue could potentially develop from an existing clause in the contract that states, "Any option to extend the term of this Agreement shall be made during the twelve -month period prior to the termination of the Agreement and shall not be unreasonably denied." This is a minor point. Staff believes the City will prevail if challenged in court; nonetheless, it is an issue that must be considered. Option 2: Extend current contract with SeaTac Disposal for two years. Pro (s): The City negotiated an exceptional contract with SeaTac Disposal. The negotiated rates are, in many cases, lower than some cities. SeaTac's overall performance to date has been satisfactory. Although there have been service issues reported by subscribers, virtually all complaints were handled expeditiously and resolved in a satisfactory manner. The Company has accommodated the City's needs by providing free disposal services to 4t of July events, and new City facilities such as Fort Dent Park, Tukwila Pool, Golf Maintenance Building, and the new bus stops. This represents an annual savings to the City of over $43,000. Additionally, the contract extension would allow more time for staff to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment. Con (s): Solid waste and recycling services will not be competed for another two years. ANALYSIS The potential for lower solid waste and recycling rates through competition is the most compelling argument against extending the contract for two additional years. The need for a comprehensive needs assessment, and staffing issues, coupled with the fact that the City has a good contract are reasons to extend the contract. While both options have merit, Option 1 offers the best alternative to the City. RECOMMENDATION Present to Committee of the Whole for discussion and Regular Council for decision. Utilities Committee March 16, 2004 Present: Pam Carter, Chair; Pam Linder, Dave Fenton Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Bob Giberson, Pat Brodin, Mike Cusick, Alan Doerschel, Rebecca Fox, Lucy Lauterbach; Steve Caputo Rabanco DRA 1. Water Sewer Como Plans Consultant Agreement The Water and Sewer Plan updates are planned for this year. The chosen fine from a list of short- listed consultants is Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. Pam Carter noted that the consultant contract came in under budget with the 9.5% contingency included. Mike indicated that the study will incorporate the portion of Water District 125's water distribution system that serves Foster Point since the City plans to take over that system. Pam commented on SewerCAD and Mike explained that the City will purchase the SewerCAD software if there is sufficient money left in the contingency. If additional modeling is required, consultant will provide the service. The consensus was to move the issue to COW and then to Regular Council. Refer Agreement with EES for S189.873 to COW. 2. Andover Park West Overflow This project will build a gravity flow system for Lift Station 2 at Minkler /Andover Park West. This is needed in case of a generator failure. The lowest bid came in under budget with the 10% contingency included. Pam asked if the low. bidder, Construct Co. LLC had done work for the City. Mike indicated that Construct Co had never worked on a project for the City but reiterated that references were checked and that feedback was very positive. A question was asked if the low bidder was a company that performed poorly on previous projects what would we do? Jim indicated that more than likely, staff would recommend the next lowest bidder and forward to Council for approval. Jim stated that part of the contract process is to determine both contractor responsiveness (did contractor fully meet all the terms stated in the invitation for bids) and contractor responsibility (is the contractor trustworthy and does he have the ability to satisfactorily perform the proposed work). The Committee recommended moving this issue to COW and Regular Council for approval. Recommend bid award to Construct Co. LLC for S247.674.40 including WSST to COW and Council. 3. Solid Waste Contract Extension The City currently has a garbage and recycling contract with Rabanco. The contract will expire in March, 2005. Staff presented two options to the Committee: to wait until the contract expires next year and then look for a provider; or to extend the current contract for two years, which is possible because of an extension clause in the current contract. The Committee recommended this second option. Jim M said Public Works staff is too busy to negotiate a new contract with possible a new contractor next year, and that an extension was their favored option. Pam L asked about performance, which staff repoited as excellent. Regarding rates, Frank said Tukwila's rates compare favorably to other cities around us. Pam C asked about Bellevue's new contract, which is very complicated but probably has lower rates than Tukwila. Steve's answer was that Tukwila's rates are the best in the whole South Sound. Jim M noted the time to be able to extend the contract expires at the end of March. Pam C asked whether there were any reasons not to extend, and Frank said there weren't any other than denying other providers the right to compete for our business. Dave said as a commercial customer he's had very good support from Rabanco.