CITY OF KIRKLAND Department of Public Works 123 Fifth ...Council/Council+Packets/06… ·...

CITY OF KIRKLAND Department of Public Works 123 Fifth Avenue, Kirkland, WA 98033 425.587.3800 www.kirklandwa.gov

MEMORANDUM To: Kurt Triplett, City Manager From: John MacGillivray, Solid Waste Programs Supervisor Kathy Brown, Public Works Director Date: June 8, 2017 Subject: Solid Waste Collection Services Contract RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council selects one of the following options:

1. Provisionally award the new base contract with any selected alternatives to Republic Services, contingent upon the successful completion of a time-limited, contract finalization period to be completed in time for final City Council approval of the contract at the July 18, 2017 City Council meeting, with a failure to complete said good faith contract finalization resulting in an automatic two year extension under the original terms and conditions of Kirkland’s current contract with Waste Management (WMI);

2. Exercise the first of Kirkland’s two, 2-year extension options in the existing contract with WMI under the original terms and conditions through June 30, 2020;

3. Provide other direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: All of the City-issued request-for-proposal documents and each of the proposals and forms received from the three proponents are available for review on the City’s Purchasing Services website. Attachments to this memorandum include: Attachment 1: Qualitative Scoring Summary Attachment 2: Qualitative Scoring Worksheet Example Attachment 2: Rates Evaluation and Scoring Table Attachment 3: Reference Checks

Council Meeting: 06/20/2017 Agenda: Unfinished Business Item #: 10. b.

http://www.kirklandwa.gov/depart/Finance_and_Administration/doingbusiness/BusinessOpportunities.htm


Memorandum to Kurt Triplett, City Manager June 8, 2017

IMPORTANT NOTE: To avoid the appearance of any preference, whenever the proponents are listed together in this memorandum, they are listed in alphabetical order. BACKGROUND: The City of Kirkland contracts with Waste Management (WMI) for the collection of residential and commercial solid waste and has done so continuously for over three decades. The current contract was directly negotiated with WMI at the City Council’s direction in 2010-2011 and implemented one month after the Juanita, Finn Hill, Kingsgate (JFK) annexation on July 1, 2011. The contract with WMI is due to expire on June 30, 2018; however, the City may, at its sole option, extend the agreement under the current terms and conditions twice, each extension of which shall not exceed two years in duration. Any notice to extend the agreement must be provided to WMI not less than 90 days prior to the expiration of the agreement. The City of Kirkland has not undergone a competitive solid waste contract procurement since 2002. Request for Proposal Authorization In May 2016, staff provided briefings to members of the City Council Public Works, Parks, and Human Services Committee and to the Council’s Finance and Administration Committee on the various procurement options and their anticipated rate and service outcomes. At its June 21, 2016 meeting, City Council authorized staff to solicit proposals for future solid waste collection services via a competitive request-for-proposals (RFP) process and provided staff with a budget allocation of $45,000 from the Solid Waste cash reserve for consulting services. Other procurement alternatives considered included extending the current contract by two or four years, negotiating a new agreement, or undergoing a request-for-bid process. The evaluation of several recent municipal contract procurement processes indicated that the City might achieve lower rates and a greater suite of enhanced or new services through a competitive process. Upon authorizing the RFP process, City Council asked staff to review any contract offers made by WMI before the release of the final RFP documents. Pre-Submittal Period At the beginning of the procurement process, staff contracted with Epicenter Services LLC to provide contract document preparation and strategic advice and Sound Resource Management to conduct analyses of rate proposals using the established 2017-18 solid waste rate model. After a thorough legal review by the Kirkland City Attorney’s Office, the City conducted a three week industry review period which began on October 24, 2016 in which potential proponents were able to review and provide comments on the draft RFP and contract documents prior to official release. Industry review is a standard best management practice undertaken to ensure transparency, fairness, and limit contract exceptions in the final proposals. A total of 159 questions and comments were received from Recology Cleanscapes, Republic Services, and WMI and can be found as Appendix D to the City’s RFP on the City’s Purchasing Services website. At the conclusion of the industry review period, all three prospective proponents met in person with City staff to explain and elaborate upon their concerns and comments. After incorporating the industry review comments into the second draft of the RFP and contract documents, potential proponents were given an additional two weeks to submit follow-up questions.




Waste Management Contract Offer Before the final release of the RFP documents, WMI was provided with the opportunity to make a long-term contract offer to the City outside of the competitive procurement process. Waste Management was advised to withhold its contract offer until the beginning of the industry review period so it would have a full understanding the provisions and enhancements sought by the City in the base contract and contract alternatives upon which it would presumably base its contract offer. The WMI 10-year contract offer included many of the enhancements in the base contract and a customer service and recycling center. City staff conducted a thorough review of the offer but determined that the proposed 11.8% retail rate increase was too far outside the parameters the City would expect to receive through a competitive procurement process. The WMI offer was officially declined on January 13, 2017. “RETAIN AND IMPROVE” THEME: Kirkland’s current and past series of contracts with WMI have offered reliable, high quality solid waste collection and processing services to Kirkland’s residents and businesses. These services are supportive of Kirkland’s environmental goals and fundamental to Kirkland attaining its high annual recycling diversion rate. However, as the region collectively drives toward achieving a 70% recycling diversion rate by 2020 to extend the life of the Cedar Hills Landfill – our lowest cost disposal option – a new contract offers the opportunity for the City to continue its regional leadership by improving upon current -- or implementing new -- services to reduce waste, increase diversion, heighten convenience, equalize services for underserved multifamily populations, and achieve greater value for our residents and businesses. Some of the most noteworthy and advantageous services and programs retained from our current contract, along with proposed contract improvements, are listed in Table 1 below. Unlike the contract alternatives discussed later in this memorandum, the pricing of the new and improved services are included in the base contract pricing proposals and thus the incremental cost of those improvements is unknown although embedded in the proposed rates.

Table 1: Retained and New/Improved Services & Provisions

Retained Services New/Improved Services

Weekly residential garbage, recycling and yard/food waste service

Unlimited commercial recycling

Embedded recycling and yard waste Curbside collection of fluorescent tubes, Styrofoam, cooking oil, batteries

Curbside collection of electronics, oil, textiles, CFL bulbs

New fleet of CNG collection vehicles

Unlimited multifamily recycling capacity Low cost bulky item collection

CBD and neighborhood park garbage collection

Recycling collection at neighborhood parks

Christmas tree collection No gate or lock opening fees

Multifamily and commercial organics programs

No charges for up to six yard waste extras after City-declared storm events

13 gallon food recycling container

Donation of services to special events

Improved strike language and performance fees


New and Improved Services and Provisions Unlimited Commercial Recycling The City’s current contract allows commercial customers with dumpster-based service (1 to 8 cubic yards) to receive weekly recycling service at no additional cost up to 150% the size of their garbage service. Customers with roll-off service (10 cubic yards and larger) garbage service are limited to 8 cubic yards of recycling per week. In both cases, customers exceeding the recycling service limitation must pay a per-yard fee for additional recycling to WMI, contract separately with a third-party commercial recycling hauler, or dispose of the additional recyclables in the garbage. This improvement would allow all commercial customers to receive an unlimited amount of recycling. Curbside Services Single family residents may recycle electronics, motor oil, CFL bulbs, and textiles at the curb at no additional cost. The new curbside collection services would include the addition of fluorescent tubes, Styrofoam blocks, cooking oil, and household batteries. If Council were to award a new contract and elected to include the recycling center alternative, some or all of these new curbside services could be deleted from the base contract at a savings to the City. New Fleet of CNG Collection Vehicles The base contract calls for the purchase and deployment of a brand new fleet of CNG collection vehicles. Older vehicles are more prone to downtime and hydraulic and oil leaks, and CNG vehicles have lower emissions and are quieter. Low Cost Bulky Item Collection Single family residents may schedule the curbside pick-up of bulky items such as appliances, refrigerators/freezers, furniture, and mattresses. Prices for these services are cost-prohibitive at $131.91 for each item and this service is largely unused. In the new base contract, the cost for these services will be reduced to a more affordable range of $20 to $30 each, which aligns with the recycling fees charged by King County at its modern transfer stations. Recycling Collection at Neighborhood Parks Waste Management provides garbage collection at 22 neighborhood parks. In 2016, Kirkland received a grant and installed recycling containers at a number of these parks. Waste Management has informally and graciously provided recycling collection service since the containers were installed. This alternative would formalize the contractor’s requirement to service recycling containers at neighborhood parks. Elimination of Gate and Unlocking Fees Waste Management and other service providers typically charge multifamily and commercial customers a fee to unlock and open trash and recycling enclosure gates. The cost for these services are per occurrence and cost $2.61 and $4.62, respectively. These services will be included as a part of the regular multifamily and commercial collection service and not billed separately. No Charge for Yard Waste Extras after Storm Events (up to six per customer) Effective in 2013, the City Council opted to no longer provide single family residential customers with unlimited yard waste extras at no additional cost due to increasing costs after annexation. The City currently charges customers $5.40 for each 32 gallon unit of extra food/yard waste. During storm events, particularly in the fall, residents can accumulate significant amounts of


yard waste from leaves and blow down. This new provision would permit residents to place out an additional 96 gallons (three extras) at no additional cost for the two weeks following a City-declared storm event with a limitation of up to three storm events per year. 13 Gallon Food Recycling Container All single family residential customers are provided with a default 96 gallon yard/food waste cart as a part of their curbside collection service. Residents may request smaller 64 or 35 gallon carts as substitutes. However, some single family residents do not have yards and/or do not have space for a large yard/food waste cart. This service would allow residents to still participate in the composting food scraps without having to manage a large yard/food waste cart. Donation of Collection Services to City Events The contractor will be required to provide garbage, recycling, and composting service to up to six City or City-sponsored events per year at no cost to the City or users. Improved Strike Language and Performance Fees The language in Kirkland’s current contract concerning the liquidated damages, which may be levied against WMI for lack of performance during a work stoppage, is open to broad interpretation. The new contract requires the service provider to keep the City apprised of strike contingency and recovery plans and provide pro-rated credits to customers for each week missed due to a work stoppage. The new contract language also requires the contractor to pay the City a base amount of $10,000 for each day of the strike plus an additional amount of $20,000 a day for each day from the 1st through the 7th day; $40,000 a day for each day from the 8th through the 14th day of the strike; and $60,000 a day for each day after the 15th day of the work stoppage. If this language had been in place during the eight day strike in 2013, the City would have received damages in the amount of $250,000 plus a credit to customers for missed service. PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS BACKGROUND: In preparing contract documents, evaluating and incorporating proponent comments, evaluating proposals, and making recommendations, staff involved in the procurement process observed the following overarching goals and principles:

• Ensure compliance with Kirkland’s established purchasing policies and procedures • Ensure inclusion, process integrity, fairness, and transparency • Attain value for Kirkland’s residents and businesses • Where feasible, support potential policies and goals in the draft King County Solid Waste

Comprehensive plan • Observe established City Council goals

Consequently, all staff, consultants, purchasing agents, and others directly involved in the procurement process were asked to sign an Evaluation Committee Member Statement to ensure compliance with the ethical purchasing standards in KMC Section 3.85.050 and the employee code of ethics in KMC Section 3.82. On March 20, 2017, Recology Cleanscapes, Republic Services, and WMI each submitted proposals for the City’s consideration. Per the RFP, the proposals were evaluated based upon pricing (70 points) and several qualitative elements (30 points). Several evaluation


methodologies were reviewed and the 70/30 formula was deemed to provide the best balance by recognizing the relative importance of price while also acknowledging that qualitative elements independent of price, such as customer service, are also of value to Kirkland’s residents and businesses. Only one contract exception was received from the three proponents, which was a reflection of the opportunities for comment provided through the industry review and question and answer periods. Republic Services suggested the City consider an alternative to the local Urban Wage Earners Seattle, Tacoma, Bremerton CPI-W annual CPI escalator required in the base contract. Republic proposed substituting either a flat annual 3.5% escalator or instead referencing a national Water, Sewer, and Garbage Collection consumer price index which includes garbage collection. Neither of the proposed escalation methods were accepted given that the CPI-W has averaged 2.42% over the last 17 years relative to the proposed flat annual 3.5% or the Water, Sewer, Trash index averaging 4.57% annually over the same time period. Qualitative Evaluation Process To evaluate of the qualitative elements of the proposals, a seven person, multi-departmental Evaluation Team was formed and consisted of the City’s Public Works Director, Solid Waste Programs Supervisor, Customer Accounts Supervisor, Customer Service Lead, Recycling Programs Coordinator, and Environmental Education and Outreach Specialist. The seventh member of the team was the Recycling and Environmental Services Manager from the King County Solid Waste Division. The qualitative elements were reviewed by the Evaluation Team without knowledge of the rate proposals. The relative quality of each proposal was determined by team member’s individual scoring of 48 criteria among seven categories. The distribution of points and relative weight of each category is shown in Table 4. Proponents were able to earn up to 45 points for each of four core categories from the RFP: Customer Service, Contract Compliance, Operations and Collection, Processing, and Education (180 points total). Additional points were available for creativity and innovation (30 points), site visits to operations and recycling processing facilities (20 points), and interviews (20 points). Reference checks were conducted by the Solid Waste Programs Supervisor and provided proponents with opportunity to earn up to an additional 60 points. Interviews Each of the three proponents was given the opportunity to interview with the Evaluation Team. Each proponent was provided with up to 30 minutes to make a presentation followed by a question and answer period from the panel. Up to 20 points were available for the interview category. Recology Cleanscapes was rated the highest in the interview category with an average of 18.9 points. Site Visits The Evaluation Team toured each proponent’s operations center and materials recovery facility (MRF). A maximum of ten points were available for each tour. The Evaluation Team was most impressed with the Recology Cleanscapes Recycling Center and the Waste Management Operations Center.


Table 2: Facility Site Visits

Proponent Operations Center Recycling Center

Recology Cleanscapes Seattle Seattle

Republic Services Bellevue Seattle

Waste Management Woodinville Woodinville

Reference Checks Three municipal references were checked for each of the proponents by the Solid Waste Programs Supervisor. Twenty points were available for each reference for a total of 60 points possible. References were selected based upon their similarity in land area and population size compared to Kirkland. The solid waste contract administrator/manager for each jurisdiction was interviewed. Overall, Recology Cleanscapes’ achieved the highest reference score with WMI second and Republic Services third.

Table 3: References Checked

Recology Cleanscapes Republic Services Waste Management

City of Bothell City of Bellevue City of Auburn

City of Maple Valley City of Renton City of Federal Way

City of Shoreline City of Sammamish City of Redmond

Points Award Formula While the staff retained a high degree of autonomy in how to award points for the qualitative elements, for the purposes of consistency the same formula used to award pricing points was used to award qualitative points. For example, the proposal receiving the highest average number of points was awarded the maximum 30 points. Each of the remaining proposals were then assigned points based upon the proposal’s percentage of the highest rated proposal multiplied by 30 points by using the following formula: Subject Proposal Qualitative Score = [Subject Average Score]/[Highest Average Score] X 30 For example, Recology Cleanscapes received the highest overall qualitative score and received the maximum of 30 points. The second highest rated proposal was WMI which had an overall average score of 242.57 points which is 88.9% of the average Recology Cleanscapes score. Consequently, WMI received 26.7 qualitative points. Similarly, Republic Services received an average of 222.07 qualitative points which was 81.4% of the Recology Cleanscapes score. This resulted in a qualitative score of 24.4 qualitative points for Republic Services. Table 4 below shows the final points awarded to each proponent for the qualitative review and highlights in green the highest rated and in red the lowest rated average score for each of the eight qualitative criteria. Evaluation Team Findings As shown in Table 4, the Evaluation Team consistently ranked Recology Cleanscapes the overall highest on the qualitative elements of the proposal with WMI second, and Republic Services third. Recology was ranked highest in the Customer Service, Contract Implementation, Collection, Processing, and Education, Creativity and Innovation, Facility Site Visits, Interviews, and Reference categories. Republic Services was ranked the lowest of the three proponents in all categories but Operations and Interviews where it was ranked second. Waste Management


received the highest ranking in the Operations category and the lowest ranking for its interview. Waste Management placed second in all of the other categories.

Table 4: Detail of Average Qualitative Ratings

Criteria Weight Points

Available Recology

Cleanscapes Republic Services

Waste Management

Customer Service

58%

45 41.1 33.8 37.6

Contract Implementation 45 39.4 35.2 37.5

Operations 45 30.7 35 36.4

Collection, Processing, and Education

45 41.3 34.5 34.9

Creativity and Innovation 9.5% 30 27.7 12.3 18.4

Facility Site Visits 6.5% 20 17 12.3 16.4

Interviews 6.5% 20 18.9 15.5 12.8

References 19.5% 60 56.5 43.5 48.5

Total 100% 310 272.64 222.07 242.57

Points Scored 30 24.4 26.7

Rates Evaluation Process In the RFP, proponents were asked to provide pricing for all single family, multifamily, commercial, and roll-off collection and disposal services provided under the base contract. Proponents were also asked to provide pricing for the seven contract alternatives. The scoring of this pricing element was based solely upon the overall revenue requirement in the base contract, independent of the alternatives. As with the qualitative evaluation, points were awarded based upon the proponent with the lowest overall annual revenue requirement receiving the maximum 70 points. The remaining two pricing scores were arrived at using the following formula from the RFP. Subject Proposal Rate Score = [Lowest Rate Total/Subject Proposal Total] X 70 Republic Services Score: 70 points Recology Cleanscapes Score: [$12,627,471/$14,107,298] x 70 = 62.7 points Waste Management Score: [12,627,471/$13,371,167] x 70 = 66.1 points


Errata and Omissions The following errors and omissions on Form 2 were deemed to be inadvertent and were corrected by staff before calculating the final revenue requirements for scoring:

1. Recology Cleanscapes: The rates in the Collection Fee column in the Commercial Detachable Container (Compacted) section were converted from the monthly rates provided to weekly rates for consistency with other proposals.

2. Recology Cleanscapes: In the Proposal Alternatives, EoW Single-Family Garbage

Collection, the rates provided were annual instead of monthly. The pricing was adjusted to monthly.

3. Recology Cleanscapes: In the Proposal Alternatives 6 and 7, Shift Disposal to Shoreline

Transfer Station and Shift Disposal to Factoria Transfer Station, the pricing provided was annual rather than monthly. The pricing has been adjusted to monthly for consistency with the other proposals.

4. Republic Services: In the Proposal Alternative 7, Republic Services did not provide

pricing for the Shift Disposal to Factoria Transfer Station. Staff has assumed a zero cost for this alternative as Republic Services base of operations for this contract is Bellevue where the Factoria Transfer Station is located.

Table 5: Rates Scoring Calculation

Recology Cleanscapes

Republic Services Waste

Management

Annual Revenue Requirement*

$14,107,298 $12,627,471 $13,371,260

Percentage of Lowest Price

89.5% N/A 94.4%

Points 62.7 70 66.1

*Current annual revenue requirement is $11,670,904. FINAL PROPOSAL SCORING: Table 6 below shows the final qualitative and rates scoring of the three base proposals. Recology Cleanscapes received the highest qualitative rating with Republic Services receiving the lowest qualitative rating. In terms of price, Republic Services’ rates proposal was ranked the highest with Recology Cleanscapes receiving the lowest rating and 62.7 points. Overall, Republic Services received the highest overall rating with 94.4 points followed by Waste Management at 92.8 points and Recology Cleanscapes just 1/10 of a point behind at 92.7 points.


Table 6: Base Contract Qualitative and Pricing Ratings

Criteria Recology


Waste Management

Qualitative (30 points) 30 24.4 26.7

Price (70 points) 62.7 70 66.1

Total 92.7 94.4 92.8

BASE PROPOSAL RATES ANALYSIS: Table 7 below shows the average retail rate increase from each of the three base proposals which would be charged to Kirkland’s residents and businesses. The base retail rates do not include any of the contract alternatives discussed below. The retail rates are different by sector due to the relative increases or decreases in each proponent’s wholesales rates, translation of the retail rates from the wholesale to retail, and the cross subsidies in Kirkland’s rates. It is also important to note that these rates are preliminary and are subject to change pending the award of the contract to one of the proponents and the ensuing finalization of contract terms.

Table 7: Retail Rate Impacts of Base Pricing Proposals

Sector Recology


Waste Management

Single Family 12.5% 4.5% 7.0%

MF/Commercial 23.7% 7.4% 17.0%

Roll-off 5.6% 7.0% -1.9%

Average Increase 17% 5.8% 10.9%

Base Proposal Rate Increase Monthly Charges by Sector Table 8 shows the projected monthly and annual rate impact of the base rate proposals to the average single family and multifamily/commercial. The average single family residential customer is defined as having a 35 gallon weekly garbage service. As a rule of thumb, for single family residential rates, each retail rate increase or decrease percentage point adds or subtracts approximately 25 cents to the average single family residential customer’s monthly garbage bill. The average multifamily/commercial customer is defined as having a 4 cubic yard dumpster serviced once per week. The average roll-off customer rate increases are dependent upon whether the service is non-compacted or compacted, the number of weekly on-call service requests, container size, and non-compacted monthly container rental fees.

Table 8: Monthly/Annual Retail Rate Impacts to Average Customers Recology

Cleanscapes Republic Services Waste Management

Month Year Month Year Month Year

Single Family $3.20 $38.40 $1.15 $13.80 $1.79 $21.48

MF/Commercial $57.12 $685.44 $17.83 $213.96 $40.97 $491.64

Roll-off $11.85 $142.20 $14.82 $177.84 -$4.02 -$48.24


CONTRACT ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the improved services and provisions in the base contract, the City sought pricing on several contract alternatives independent of the base contract. Any or all of these alternatives may be selected a la carte by the City Council for incorporation into the final contract before final Council approval. It is important to note that Alternatives 4, 6, and 7 are placeholders and would be inserted into the base contract. In the event the Council wished to transition to every-other-week garbage service or if the Houghton Transfer Station closes temporarily for up to one year in mid-2018 due the King County demand management pilot at some point during the contract, then the pricing in the placeholder would be referenced and take effect. The following series of tables describes each alternative in detail and presents some of the pros and cons for the Council’s consideration, along with a staff recommendation if Council opts to award the contract to a proponent.

Alternative 1: Contractor Billing

The City of Kirkland is now only one of two cities in King County which bills its own customers directly for solid waste collection services. Customers are billed bi-monthly. The estimated annual cost of internal billing services is $258,000 which includes 2.0 Utility Billing FTEs, bill printing and postage services, credit card fees, and other administrative costs. Under this alternative, the contractor would act as a billing and collection agent and would assume the responsibility for billing all Kirkland customers and receiving and posting customer payments. The City would remain responsible for collecting bad debt via liens and/or collections. Under the billing agent relationship, the City would continue to set retail rates which the billing agent would bill to the customer. Under a normal billing agent relationship, the contractor bills for the City and all of the receipts are the property of the City. The City then pays the contractor for collection and disposal services.

Pros Cons

Moderate reduction in customer service calls and emails.

Diminished City customer relationship and advocacy.

City retains control over retail rate policy and setting.

Customer inconvenience of receiving an additional bill.

Potential decrease in overall cost, depending upon contractor selected.

Increase in delinquency rate. Bills would no longer be linked to City water services which allows the City to shut off water service to compel customers to pay. In the area where Kirkland provides water service, there are 26 delinquent accounts totaling about $33,000. In the annexation area where Kirkland does not provide water service, there are approximately 504 delinquent accounts with outstanding debt of $190,000.

Enforcement of mandatory collection would be more challenging.

Significant time spent managing liens and collections.

Potential increase in overall cost, depending upon contractor selected

Customer service calls and emails continue to be received as customer still sees the City as


the contracting authority and customer advocate.

Displacement of up to two full-time Utility Billing staff.

Alternative 2: Customer Service and Recycling Center

Under this alternative, the contractor would open a branded Customer Service and Recycling Center within the City in a convenient location by July 1, 2018. The center would be open for at least forty (40) hours per week, six days per week with at least six (6) hours on Saturdays. The center space would be at least 1,500 square feet in size and also provide storage space for accepted recyclables and materials to be distributed to visitors. The center would serve the following functions: 1. Drop-off location for difficult-to-recycle items such as Styrofoam™, plastic bags and film, fluorescent tubes and bulbs, household batteries, smoke detectors, textiles, car seats, bicycles, and small electronics and appliances. Items may be added or deleted at the City’s discretion. 2. Customer service and assistance center. The contractor would offer the same services as those available to customers on-line or through the call center. The center would include an interactive kiosk with an area dedicated for City and Contractor-produced recycling education and outreach materials and the distribution of material assistance to include, for example, reusable shopping bags, kitchen food scrap containers, compostable bag samples, commercial deskside recycling containers, and multifamily recycling baskets/bags. The center would display full-size 96, 64, 35, 20, and 10-gallon carts with pricing and right-sizing recommendations. 3. Environmental product sales. The contractor may offer items for sale which promote waste reduction and recycling and promote environmentally-conscious consumerism. Any products offered for sale would meet at least one of the following criteria: manufactured from recycled materials; recyclable or compostable; manufactured locally; offers environmental education; promotes durability over disposability; and/or is unique to the contractor’s brand. 4. Community events and education. The center would be used as a gathering space for community events as well as educational workshops, presentations, City events, and other resource conservation and sustainability education, including swap events for reusable materials.

Pros Cons

Six days-per-week operating hours provides more convenience for all customers.

Expensive. The annual cost of the center exceeds the cost of the City providing similar curbside or drop-off services at City facilities. The Solid Waste Division spends approximately $83,000/year for drop-off locations and semi-annual recycling collection events.

Provides regular recycling opportunities for underserved populations like multifamily residents which do not benefit from single family curbside collection services.

City staff already provides responsive customer service opportunities through a recycling hotline and email address.


Would result in some savings to the City since some or all of the current and new curbside collection services could be deleted in lieu offering those service exclusively at the recycling center.

Republic Services did not discuss this alternative in its proposal so staff is unclear if the pricing providing would be adequate to satisfactorily implement all of the recycling center requirements described above.

If Council opted to include the contractor billing alternative, the center would serve as a local bill payment and account management center.

Additional space for education and events

Alternative 3: 10-year Contract Length

The base contract length is eight years, plus two extension of up to two years each at the option of the City. Under this alternative, the contract length would be ten years, plus one extension of up to two years at the option of the City.

Pros Cons

This alternative offers the potential for savings to the City by allowing the selected contractor a longer period over which to depreciate capital assets such as collection vehicles, facility improvements, and carts.

In case of marginal contractor performance (i.e. not as good as expected but not poor enough to trigger default), the City would be obligated under contract for a longer period.

Alternative 4: Every-other-week Garbage Collection

This alternative is intended to be included in the base contract as a placeholder in the event the City Council directs staff to implement every-other-week garbage collection at some point during the term of the contract. The base contract requires weekly service. More significant savings could be realized if every-other-week garbage collection service were to be implemented at the beginning of the contract since the service provider would not have to purchase as many collection vehicles.

Pros Cons

This alternative is a placeholder and the pricing provided by the selected contractor will be inserted into the base contract language and referenced if the City opts to transition to every-other-week garbage collection at some point during the term of the contract. Inclusion of this alternative will have no impact on initial rates.

Alternative 5: Older Collection Fleet

The base contract requires a new model year 2018 fleet of CNG collection vehicles at the start of the contract. This alternative would allow the deployment of slightly older vehicles which are not older than model year 2014 at the start of the contract and no older than ten years through the term of the contract, including extensions. The current fleet of collection vehicles is six years old and was put into service upon the start of the current contract in July 2011.

Pros Cons

The alternative may provide the City with savings by allowing the contractor to utilize existing inventory of older collection vehicles

The reliability of collection vehicles diminishes over time resulting in the need to periodically use less efficient, diesel fuel replacement vehicles.


in lieu of purchasing new vehicles which cost ~$300,000 each.

Older collection vehicles are more prone to oil and hydraulic leaks.

Diminished aesthetics

Only one proponent (Waste Management) offered any savings for this alternative.

Alternative 6: Disposal at the Shoreline Transfer Station

The base contract assumes disposal of collected garbage at the King County Houghton Transfer Station in Kirkland. Under this alternative, the contractor may utilize the Shoreline Transfer Station for disposal, with the City’s permission, either temporarily or permanently at any time during the contract. This alternative was included primarily to address the potential for a King County demand management pilot slated to begin in mid-2018 in which the Houghton Transfer Station may be closed for up to one year.

Pros Cons

This alternative is a placeholder and the pricing provided by the selected contractor will be inserted into the base contract language. Inclusion of this alternative will have no impact on initial rates.

Alternative 7: Disposal at the Factoria Transfer Station

The base contract assumes disposal of collected garbage at the King County Houghton Transfer Station in Kirkland. Under this alternative, the contractor may utilize the Factoria Transfer Station for disposal either temporarily or permanently, with the City’s permission, at any time during the contract. This alternative was included primarily to address the potential for a King County demand management pilot slated to begin in mid-2018 in which the Houghton Transfer Station may be closed for up to one year.

Pros Cons

This alternative is a placeholder and the pricing provided by the selected contractor will be inserted into the base contract language. Inclusion of this alternative will have no impact on initial rates.

Pricing of Contract Alternatives Table 8 below shows a summary of price increases or decreases for each alternative and whether the rate adjustment is annual, monthly, or weekly.

Table 8: Contract Alternatives Pricing

Alternative

Time Unit


Republic Services

Waste Management

1 Contractor Billing Year +$104,848 +$245,000 +$319,000

2 Recycling Center Year +$219,504 +$150,000 +$348,000

3 10-Year Contract Year -$279,930 -$320,000 -$177,000

4 EOW Collection (per customer) Month -$1.52 -$3.15 -$1.89

5 Older Fleet Year $0.00 $0.00 -$236,000

6 Shoreline Disposal Week +$18,832.17 +$8,750 +$14,200

7 Factoria Disposal Week +8,378 Not provided +$9,100


Alternative Rate Scenarios To provide the Council with the ability to easily mix and match the various alternatives and compare the potential retail rate impact upon the base contract’s average retail rate increase, Table 9 breaks down each of the alternatives into its percentage point impact on the average retail rates. Alternatives 4, 6, and 7 have been excluded from the table since they are contact placeholders and do not have any impact upon rates at the inception of the contract. Rate Scenarios Examples For example, if Council chose to award the base contract to Recology Cleanscapes base and wished to add Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, the total average retail rate increase would be 17.1% (17 + .7 + 1.5 – 2.1 = 17.1%). Similarly, if Council opted for Republic Services but chose only the longer term 10 year contract alternative reduction of 2.3 percentage points, then the average retail rate would be decreased to 3.5%. If Council selected the WMI proposal but only opted for Alternatives 3 and 5 to reduce the rate increase, the average retail rate increase for the WMI proposal would be 7.9% (10.9 – 1.3 – 1.7 = 7.9%).

Table 9: Contract Alternative Retail Rate Impacts (Percentage Points)


Republic Services

Waste Management

Average Base Contract Retail Increase 17% 5.8% 10.9%

1 Contractor Billing +0.7 pp +1.7 pp +2.3 pp

2 Recycling Center +1.5 pp +1.1 pp +2.5 pp

3 10-Year Length -2.1 pp -2.3 pp -1.3 pp

5 Older Collection Fleet 0 0 -1.7 pp

OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS

Responsiveness and Responsibility. Each of the proponents has proven through its proposal and in practice the capability, in varying degrees, to satisfactorily provide customer service and collection, disposal, and processing services per the terms and provisions of the base contract.

Lowest Cost Proposal. The base rates proposal from Republic Services is substantially lower than the other proposals and within the rate increase parameters staff anticipated would be received through a competitive procurement process. The Republic Services proposal also received the highest overall rating. If Republic Services’ base rates proposal with the alternative of 10-year contract were selected, the average single family residential customer’s monthly bill would increase by about a dollar. In return for the rate increase, residents and businesses would receive the new service enhancements and provisions.

A Contract Extension is Lowest Cost Option. There would be no rate increase with a two- or four-year extension of the City’s current agreement with WMI. The only increases over the extension period would be the contractual requirement of an annual CPI adjustment, any increase in the King County


disposal fee, and modest increases in administrative costs. There appears to be little risk with extending the current agreement over signing a new contract if the CPI remains within reasonable parameters (under 5%). The annual CPI would have to increase substantially to make a new contract less expensive that the current contract. However, as a trade-off for not awarding a new contract, residents and businesses would not receive the benefit any of the aforementioned new service enhancements and provisions.

Flexibility to Independently Implement Some Enhancements and Provisions. If one or both of the contract extensions were exercised, no new service enhancements or provisions would be implemented. However, City Council always retains the flexibility to adopt some of the new service enhancements independently of the contract process. For example, Council through its biennial rate setting process could embed and subsidize in the retail rate such things as lower cost bulky item collection, the elimination of gate and unlocking fees, and/or extra free units of yard debris collection after storm events. There is past precedent for this practice when unlimited yard waste extras were provided to residents until 2013 and currently with the rate subsidization of costs associated with Kirkland’s multifamily and commercial organics program where customers are provided with composting service at no additional cost. Other services, such as recycling service at neighborhood parks, could potentially be negotiated at minor if any cost as a part of any extension.

Extension Caveat. Upon annexation in 2011, WMI was required to purchase the annexation area from Republic Services for at least $1,500,000. Waste Management also made a capital investment in new collection vehicles and 30,000 new garbage and recycling carts for annexation area customers. The presumption has been that WMI, in keeping with reasonable business practices and given that WMI was not automatically entitled to either of the two-year extensions with the City assent, depreciated these costs in their wholesale rates over the seven year term of the contract. If that depreciation schedule were true, then the City’s ratepayers would continue to pay for these fully depreciated costs over the term of the extension(s) at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, akin to continuing to pay a portion of one’s home mortgage on a mortgage that has been paid off. Waste Management has indicated that it depreciated these capital investments in their rates over 11 year period presuming that the City would exercise both of its extensions. However, there is no way to confirm or refute this assertion without direct access to WMI’s accounting.

Extension of Current Contract with Service Enhancements

If all of the service enhancements and provisions in the new contract were to be incorporated into a two- or four-year extension of the City’s current contract with WMI, the rate increase would be higher than simply awarding a new contract to the proponent with the lowest pricing proposal, Republic Services. Staff estimates that the retail rate increase of a two- or four-year extension with new service enhancements and provisions would range between 4.5% – 6.5% versus a 10-year agreement with Republic Services retail increase of 3.5% that assumes the base contract plus the selection of a longer term contract.


Two-Year or Four-Year Extension. If the City Council elects to extend its current contract with WMI, Council may wish to consider exercising only one of the two-year extensions, extending the agreement through June 30, 2020. This would allow the City the flexibility to respond to unforeseen changes in the economy and the overall solid waste contracting landscape and weigh whether or not the City could achieve better quality and pricing through undergoing another procurement process starting in late-summer of 2018. Conversely, solid waste contract procurement processes are expensive and labor intensive. A four-year contract extension would provide for a longer period of service and rate predictability.

Solid Waste Utility Cash Reserve. The current Solid Waste cash reserve is approximately $1,764,283. Established fiscal policy dictates that the Utility’s cash reserve should remain at a minimum of $1,300,000. This policy was implemented to ensure adequate cash-on-hand to cover one month’s payment to WMI plus administrative expenses. The City pays WMI’s invoices monthly but bills its customers in arrears every two months. If a base contract were to be awarded to either Recology Cleanscapes or WMI and no new retail rates were adopted by Council for the July-Dec 2018 period, the cash reserve would be depleted below $1,300,000 by the end of 2018, down to approximately $671,000 and $1,109,000, respectively. This reserve depletion could require Council to consider adopting an interim set of retail rates effective on July 1, 2018 at the start of the contract to maintain the minimum cash reserve balance for the remainder of 2018 and then adopt another set of two-year rates on January 1, 2019. The 2019/2010 retail rates would be adjusted by the annual CPI increase in the new contract, an expected increase in the King County disposal fee, and any nominal increase in internal administrative expenses. If the Republic Services base rates proposal were accepted, the cash reserve would be depleted by approximately $283,000 down to $1,481,000 which would give the Utility the flexibility to absorb the wholesale rate increase from the new contract for the last six months of 2018 and consequently defer any retail rate increase until the 2019-2020 biennium. If the Council opted to extend its contract with WMI, the cash reserve would not be impacted and no new rates would need to be adopted until the 2019-20 biennium.

Contract Alternative Considerations

If Council elects to award the contract to one of the proponents, it may select any or all of the alternatives previously discussed. The following is some additional analysis of the non-placeholder alternatives to supplement the pros and cons presented on pages 10-14 of this memorandum. Alternative 1: Contractor Billing The WMI proposal is $61,000 more than our current internal cost of $258,000 and the Republic Services proposal is just $13,000 less the City’s internal costs and would require an intensive transition effort with likely impacts to staff and customers. While


the $104,848 Recology Cleanscapes’ pricing is apparently substantially lower than the City’s internal cost, staff is concerned that the pricing is potentially too low to adequately provide billing services and Recology Cleanscapes’ proposal has the highest retail rate increase of 17%. Alternative 2: Customer Service and Recycling Center Currently, Recology Cleanscapes has opened four recycling centers in other cities and is the only proponent with experience in this area. Accordingly, Recology’s pricing of this alternative at $219,504 reflects the true cost of providing this service. The pricing provided by WMI is $348,000 or about 60% higher than Recology’s pricing. The Republic Services pricing is the lowest at $150,000; however, even though the desired attributes of the recycling center were specifically explained in the RFP documents, Republic Services did not provide any information in its proposal so there is a concern about what ratepayers would receive for the $150,000. The current internal costs of providing recycling drop-off services at City Hall and other City facilities and holding semiannual recycling collection events is substantially less than all three bids at about $83,000 per year. Alternative 3: Longer Term (10-Year Contract) All three proponents identified annual rate savings if a 10-year contract term was chosen over the 8-year term in the base contract. Republic Services offered the highest rate decrease of $320,000 per year, with decreases of $279,930 and $177,000 for Recology Cleanscapes and WMI, respectively. In the event the contractor selected by Council fails to satisfactorily perform, then the two additional years could be a burden to the City. However, the risk that any of the service providers would fail to perform is low and the savings outweigh the risks. Alternative 5: Older Fleet The only proponent to offer any savings for this alternative was WMI at $236,000 per year so if the new contract were to be awarded to WMI, this alternative should be considered. No savings were offered for this alternative by either Recology Cleanscapes or Republic Services. At the inception of the City’s current contract with WMI, an entirely new fleet of CNG residential and commercial collection vehicles were purchased and deployed. These vehicles will be seven years old at the end of the current contract’s term in 2018. While WMI has done an excellent job maintaining its fleet, older vehicles are nonetheless more prone to breakdowns, leaks, and higher emissions making the requirement of an all-new fleet in the base contract preferable to using older vehicles.

NEXT STEPS: If the City Council provisionally awards a new contract to one of the proponents and directs staff to pursue contract finalization, staff will enter into expedited, time-limited discussions with said service provider to incorporate any minor changes, any selected contract alternatives, and the revised wholesale rates into the base contract. If an agreement on a final contract and rates is reached between the City and the provisional service provider, then staff will promptly return to Council to seek authorization for the City Manager to execute the new contract. In the event


the parties are unable to reach an agreement on a final contract by the imposed deadline of July 18, 2017, staff will return to Council with recommendation that one or both of the extensions of the current contract with WMI be executed. If the City Council prefers to extend the existing contract with WMI, staff will implement the extension for either two or four years, depending on Council direction. If the City Council needs additional information or wishes to provide alternative direction to staff, it should make such requests at the June 20, 2017 Council meeting in order to maintain the optimal timeline for a final decision.

Evaluator CriteraRecology

Cleanscapes

Republic

Services

Waste

Management

Customer Service (45) 39 29 36

Contract Implementation and Compliance (45) 42 33 36

Operations (45) 30 30 35

Collection, Processing, and Education (45) 42 36 27

Creativity and Innovation (30) 25 15 18

Facility Site Visits (20) 18 14 16

Interviews (20) 20 13 9

Total 216 170 177


Cleanscapes

Republic

Services

Waste

Management

Customer Service (45) 42 36.5 39.5

Contract Implementation and Compliance (45) 39.5 39 39

Operations (45) 28.5 35.5 33



Facility Site Visits (20) 15.5 9 16.5


Total 214.5 172 187


Cleanscapes

Republic

Services

Waste

Management

Customer Service (45) 39.5 25.5 35.5

Contract Implementation and Compliance (45) 34.5 33.5 35

Operations (45) 28 28 31.5

Collection, Processing, and Education (45) 38 27.5 39



Interviews (20) 18 16 16.5

Total 201 161.5 192.5


Cleanscapes

Republic

Services

Waste

Management


Contract Implementation and Compliance (45) 39.5 31.5 37

Operations (45) 31.5 35.5 38

Collection, Processing, and Education (45) 37.5 37.5 35.5




Total 208.5 182 192


Cleanscapes

Republic

Services

Waste

Management


Contract Implementation and Compliance (45) 41.5 37.5 40.5

Operations (45) 30 39 39.5

Collection, Processing, and Education (45) 44.5 43.5 42


Facility Site Visits (20) 16.5 12 16.5

Interviews (20) 19.5 17.5 12

Total 223 198 211


Cleanscapes

Republic

Services

Waste

Management

Customer Service (45) 42.5 36.5 39

Contract Implementation and Compliance (45) 39.5 37 39






Total 225 179.5 208


Cleanscapes

Republic

Services

Waste

Management

Customer Service (45) 42 40 39

Contract Implementation and Compliance (45) 39 35 36






Total 225 187 191

Total Points 1513 1250 1358.5

Average Score Subtotal (250) 216.14 178.57 194.07

Average Score Subtotal Percentage 86.5% 71.43% 77.63%

References Score (60) 56.5 43.5 48.5

Total Average Final Score Percentage 87.95% 71.64% 78.25%

Final Qualitative Points Score 30 24.4 26.7

30 Rates Score 62.7 70 66.1

Final Overall Score 92.7 94.4 92.8

CriteraRecology

Cleanscapes

Republic

Services

Waste

Management

Customer Service (45) 41.1 33.8 37.6

Contract Implementation and Compliance (45) 39.4 35.2 37.5

Operations (45) 30.7 35.0 36.4

Collection, Processing, and Education (45) 41.3 34.5 34.9

Creativity and Innovation (30) 27.7 12.3 18.4

Facility Site Visits (20) 17.0 12.3 16.4

Interviews (20) 18.9 15.5 12.8

Total 216.14 178.57 194.07

References (60) 56.5 43.5 48.5

Overall Average Ratings

Jenna McInnis

Sara Waters

Kathy Brown

Tracy Durnell

Jeff Gaisford

Jay Gewin

John MacGillivray

Attachment 1

Proposer Name Proposer Name Proposer Name

PROPOSAL RATING CRITERIA RECOLOGY CLEANSCAPES REPUBLIC SERVICES WASTE MANAGEMENT

Element Customer Service (45 Points available) Score (0-5) Evaluator Comments/Notes Score (0-5) Evaluator Comments/Notes Score (0-5) Evaluator Comments/Notes

CS-1Demonstrated customer service capacity, abilities and quantitative and qualitative evaluation measures (e.g. the number of representatives designated for the City, ring/hold time data, speed to answer by human representative)

CS-2 Ability to effectively and efficiently interface with City's Utility Billing system

CS-3Ability to establish and maintain a customer-service oriented website. Overall quality of website to include content, appearance, functionality, customer account management options, and frequency of updates

CS-4 Demonstrated ability to integrate a mobile application and other current and next generation communications technology into customer service experience

CS-5 The existence of formal, written training and reference materials and frequency of customer service representative training

CS-6Proven strategies and demonstrated experience with minimizing customer and City complaints related to “misses,” damaged or misplaced containers, billing issues and other common customer and city complaints

CS-7 Demonstrated responsiveness and expedient resolution of customer and City complaints

CS-8 Demonstrated ability to provide a timely and efficient transition to new contractor services with minimal impact to customers

CS-9 Proposed local customer service opportunities, including stand-alone sites or partnerships with other businesses and institutions

Customer Service Score 0 0 0

Element Contract Implementation and Compliance (45 points available) Score (0-5) Evaluator Comments/Notes Score (0-5) Evaluator Comments/Notes Score (0-5) Evaluator Comments/Notes

IC-1 Quality and strength of managerial staff resumes (related experience, length of experience, education)

IC-2Quality of new contract implementation plan including timeline, completeness, education and outreach, customer service, collection vehicle delivery schedule, and contingency plans.

IC-3 Procedures, protocols and approach for verifying compliance with contract conditions and past performance on municipal contracts,

IC-4 Degree of involvement in past and present litigation and any violations or performance fees that were required to be paid by Proposer

IC-5 Organizational approach to safety and safety record (i.e. driver training, numberof accidents, damage claims)

IC-6 Demonstrated ability to work with client cities, agencies and others in the effective delivery and implementation of services or programs

IC-7 Policies and procedures for tracking and documenting services, including customer account information, reporting, allocating costs, tonnages, etc

IC-8 Demonstrated ability to respond to and address customer service, operations or other issues or requests in a timely and effective manner

IC-9

Demonstrated ability to work with City staff to successfully conduct good faith negotiations for performance reviews and required contract modifications such as service adjustments, unanticipated rate adjustments, new services, and/or contract extensions.

Contract Implementation and Compliance Score 0 0 0

Element Operations (45 points available) Score (0-5) Evaluator Comments/Notes Score (0-5) Evaluator Comments/Notes Score (0-5) Evaluator Comments/Notes

O-1Ability and established procedures and/or policies to maintain and operate a fleet of collection vehicles, including back-up vehicles, and containers in a clean,safe, sanitary and proper working condition.

O-2 Quality and age of collection fleet and back-up vehicles

O-3Demonstrated ability to deliver, exchange and remove customers containers in a timely, reliable, and efficient manner, including the roll-out of new services or container options

O-4 Ability to effectively and reliably communicate between fleet vehicles and customers service staff in order to address service and other on-route issues

O-5Quality of plans for and resources to provide contingency services in the event of equipment failure, loss of recycling processing, composting or solid waste disposal capability.

O-6 Approach to oil and effluent spill response

O-7 Quality of the proponent's strike/work stoppage contingency plan

O-8 Ability and willingness to study and implement alternative route technologies to improve collection efficiency

O-9Approach to handling a long-term service discruption due to inclement weather events or natural disaster (i.e. two consecutive missed service weeks due to a snow storm)

Operations Score 0 0 0

Element Recycling and Compostables Collection, Processing, and Education (45 points available)

Score (0-5) Evaluator Comments/Notes Score (0-5) Evaluator Comments/Notes Score (0-5) Evaluator Comments/Notes

R-1 The range of recyclables accepted beyond the minimum specified in the Base Contract

R-2The Proposer's selected recyclables processing facility, its hourly and daily processing capacities, and contingencies and technologies for handling a wide range of post-consumer feedstocks

R-3 Proposer's approach to monitoring collected recyclable or compostable materialsat the curb and providing feedback to Customers on contamination levels

R-4Proposer's demonstrated strategies and proposed approach to management, monitoring, and reduction of contamination (residual) in inbound recycling and compostable streams over the term of the agreement

R-5 Proposer's demonstrated ability to direct processed post-consumer recycling commodities to responsible and sustainable domestic and international markets

R-6The quality of recycling education and promotional materials developed soleby by the Proposer and Proposer's ability to clearly explain commingled recycling to customers

R-7Proposer's approach to increasing multifamily recycling diversion and conducting mutlifamily outreach, assistance, and implementation of both recycling and compostable improvements

R-8The quality of promotional materials supplied with carts (such as stickers) and the Proposer's ability to clearly explain how to participate under a commingled organics collection program

R-9

Proposer's ideas and demonstrated ability to provide educational and promotional support to maximize diversion, improve customer service, and reduce contamination under expanded recycling and compostables collection programs.

Recycling and Compostables Collection, Processing, and Education Score

0 0 0

Element Creativity and Innovation (30 points available) Score (0-30) Evaluator Score/Notes Score (0-30) Evaluator Score/Notes Score (0-30) Evaluator Score/Notes

C-1Creative, innovative, and intriguing elements and approaches in the proposal offered outside of the specifications and requirements in the RFP and base contract of benefit to the City

Element Facility Site Visits (20 points available) Score (0-10) Evaluator Score/Notes Score (0-10) Evaluator Score/Notes Score (0-10) Evaluator Score/Notes

F-1 Recycling Facility Tour (Criteria may include locations, size, innovative technologies, processing capacity, staffing, hours of operations) (10 points)

F-2 Operations Facility Tour (Criteria may include location, size, maintenance capability, vehicle fueling amenities) (10 points)

Facility Site Visits Score 0 0 0

Element Proponent Interview (20 points available) Score (0-20) Evaluator Score/Notes Score (0-20) Evaluator Score/Notes Score (0-20) Evaluator Score/Notes

I-1 Quality of proponent presentation and interview

Total Points Available 250 250 250

Total Score 0 0 0

Score Percentage 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SOLID WASTE CONTACT RFP QUALITATIVE SCORESHEETEvaluator Name:

Attachment 2

Kirkland Proposal Rate Evaluation

ServiceLevel Proposed Monthly Proposed Monthly Proposed Monthly Current Monthly

Service Level Count Rate Revenue Rate Revenue Rate Revenue Rate RevenueMonthly One 35-gallon Garbage Cart - Monthly Only 1,079 8.58$ 9,258$ 6.44$ 6,949$ 14.50$ 15,646$ 7.80$ 8,416$ Weekly One 10-gallon Garbage Cart 281 20.55$ 5,775$ 7.98$ 2,242$ 19.54$ 5,491$ 18.68$ 5,249$

Residential One 20-gallon Garbage Cart 2,431 23.63$ 57,445$ 15.96$ 38,799$ 22.51$ 54,722$ 21.48$ 52,218$ Curbside 1 35-gallon Garbage Cart 12,022 27.31$ 328,321$ 24.83$ 298,506$ 26.39$ 317,261$ 24.83$ 298,506$

1 64-gallon Garbage Cart 4,989 33.54$ 167,331$ 45.39$ 226,451$ 32.41$ 161,693$ 30.49$ 152,115$ 1 96-gallon Garbage Cart 1,096 39.27$ 43,040$ 68.08$ 74,616$ 37.95$ 41,593$ 35.70$ 39,127$

Total GarbageExtras (32 gallon equivalent) 1,500 6.39$ 9,585$ 6.12$ 9,180$ 5.90$ 8,850$ 5.81$ 8,715$ Customers: Miscellaneous Fees:

21898 Extra Yard Debris (32 gallon bag/bundle/can) 1,050 5.63$ 5,912$ 5.40$ 5,670$ 5.12$ 5,376$ 5.12$ 5,376$ 2nd and Additional 96-Gallon Yard Waste Cart 461 15.04$ 6,933$ 14.43$ 6,652$ 13.67$ 6,302$ 13.67$ 6,302$

Commercial 1 20-gallon Garbage Cart 14 19.89$ 278$ 15.96$ 223$ 18.16$ 254$ 16.51$ 231$ Can and 1 35-gallon Garbage Cart 644 25.29$ 16,287$ 24.83$ 15,991$ 23.09$ 14,870$ 20.99$ 13,518$

Cart 1 64-gallon Garbage Cart 487 30.73$ 14,966$ 45.39$ 22,105$ 28.05$ 13,660$ 25.50$ 12,419$ 1 96-gallon Garbage Cart 344 37.08$ 12,756$ 68.08$ 23,420$ 33.85$ 11,644$ 30.77$ 10,585$ Extras (32-gallon equivalent) 6.39$ -$ 6.12$ -$ 5.90$ -$ 4.57$ -$ Ancillary Fees:Weekly 35-gal Cart Subscription Compostables Service 61 27.25$ 1,662$ 11.94$ 728$ 24.37$ 1,487$ 22.93$ 1,399$ Weekly 64-gal Cart Subscription Compostables Service 105 27.50$ 2,888$ 12.84$ 1,348$ 29.32$ 3,079$ 27.50$ 2,888$ Twice-Weekly 64-gal Cart Subscription Compostables Se 112 55.00$ 6,160$ 26.68$ 2,988$ 54.70$ 6,126$ 46.06$ 5,159$ Weekly 96-gal Cart Subscription Compostables Service 16 31.60$ 506$ 13.84$ 221$ 33.59$ 537$ 31.60$ 506$ Twice-Weekly 96-gal Cart Subscription Compostables Se 7 63.20$ 442$ 27.68$ 194$ 64.18$ 449$ 60.38$ 423$

Commercial 1 96-gallon Yard Waste Cart (weekly) 164 10.70$ 1,755$ 13.84$ 2,270$ 11.77$ 1,930$ 10.70$ 1,755$ Multifamily 1 2-cubic yard Yard Waste Container (weekly) 99.40$ -$ 106.25$ -$ 120.00$ -$ 82.14$ -$

Yard 1 extra cubic yard 19.16$ -$ 33.06$ -$ 30.67$ -$ 25.56$ -$ Debris Extra Yard Debris (32 gallon bag/bundle/can) 5.63$ -$ 4.90$ -$ 5.12$ -$ 3.75$ -$

Commercial 1 Cubic Yard Container - per pickup 43.41$ -$ 55.22$ -$ 46.08$ -$ 43.52$ -$ Detachable 1.5 Cubic Yard Container - per pickup 55.63$ -$ 76.76$ -$ 62.56$ -$ 57.42$ -$ Container 2 Cubic Yard Container - per pickup 32 67.58$ 2,163$ 98.15$ 3,141$ 77.99$ 2,496$ 71.08$ 2,275$

(compacted) 3 Cubic Yard Container - per pickup 12 90.23$ 1,083$ 140.27$ 1,683$ 108.86$ 1,306$ 97.37$ 1,168$ 4 Cubic Yard Container - per pickup 7 113.13$ 792$ 182.53$ 1,278$ 148.49$ 1,039$ 123.86$ 867$ 6 Cubic Yard Container - per pickup 2 158.23$ 316$ 390.71$ 781$ 215.23$ 430$ 240.93$ 482$

Commercial 1 Cubic Yard, 1 pickup/week 97 111.11$ 10,778$ 94.48$ 9,165$ 101.43$ 9,839$ 92.21$ 8,944$ Detachable 1 Cubic Yard, 2 pickups/week 2 222.22$ 444$ 182.31$ 365$ 191.64$ 383$ 174.22$ 348$ Container 1 Cubic Yard, 3 pickups/week 333.33$ -$ 270.19$ -$ 281.85$ -$ 256.23$ -$

(loose) 1 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week 444.44$ -$ 358.04$ -$ 372.09$ -$ 338.26$ -$ 1 Cubic Yard, 5 pickups/week 555.55$ -$ 445.88$ -$ 462.32$ -$ 420.29$ -$ 1 Cubic Yard, 6 pickups/week 666.66$ -$ 533.75$ -$ 560.44$ -$ 502.34$ -$ 1.5 Cubic Yard, 1 pickup/week 42 133.84$ 5,621$ 119.85$ 5,034$ 121.08$ 5,085$ 111.07$ 4,665$ 1.5 Cubic Yard, 2 pickups/week 2 267.68$ 535$ 231.92$ 464$ 231.17$ 462$ 210.15$ 420$ 1.5 Cubic Yard, 3 pickups/week 1 401.52$ 402$ 343.97$ 344$ 340.14$ 340$ 309.22$ 309$ 1.5 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week 535.36$ -$ 456.05$ -$ 449.16$ -$ 408.33$ -$ 1.5 Cubic Yard, 5 pickups/week 669.20$ -$ 568.09$ -$ 558.11$ -$ 507.37$ -$ 1.5 Cubic Yard, 6 pickups/week 803.04$ -$ 680.23$ -$ 675.75$ -$ 606.53$ -$ 2 Cubic Yard, 1 pickups/week 168 155.60$ 26,141$ 144.71$ 24,311$ 142.04$ 23,863$ 129.13$ 21,694$ 2 Cubic Yard, 2 pickups/week 13 311.20$ 4,046$ 279.76$ 3,637$ 267.70$ 3,480$ 243.36$ 3,164$ 2 Cubic Yard, 3 pickups/week 5 466.80$ 2,334$ 414.84$ 2,074$ 393.44$ 1,967$ 357.67$ 1,788$ 2 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week 622.40$ -$ 549.87$ -$ 519.07$ -$ 471.88$ -$ 2 Cubic Yard, 5 pickups/week 778.00$ -$ 684.95$ -$ 644.80$ -$ 586.18$ -$ 2 Cubic Yard, 6 pickups/week 1 933.60$ 934$ 821.24$ 821$ 777.32$ 777$ 700.48$ 700$ 3 Cubic Yard, 1 pickup/week 183 194.75$ 35,639$ 192.10$ 35,154$ 177.78$ 32,534$ 161.62$ 29,576$ 3 Cubic Yard, 2 pickups/week 52 389.50$ 20,254$ 373.17$ 19,405$ 336.93$ 17,520$ 306.30$ 15,928$ 3 Cubic Yard, 3 pickups/week 9 584.25$ 5,258$ 554.20$ 4,988$ 495.98$ 4,464$ 450.89$ 4,058$ 3 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week 2 779.00$ 1,558$ 735.25$ 1,471$ 654.86$ 1,310$ 595.53$ 1,191$ 3 Cubic Yard, 5 pickups/week 1 973.75$ 974$ 916.30$ 916$ 814.15$ 814$ 740.14$ 740$ 3 Cubic Yard, 6 pickups/week 2 1,168.50$ 2,337$ 1,097.38$ 2,195$ 980.71$ 1,961$ 884.79$ 1,770$ 4 Cubic Yard, 1 pickup/week 195 234.83$ 45,792$ 239.95$ 46,790$ 214.37$ 41,802$ 194.88$ 38,002$ 4 Cubic Yard, 2 pickups/week 73 469.66$ 34,285$ 466.99$ 34,090$ 406.87$ 29,702$ 369.88$ 27,001$ 4 Cubic Yard, 3 pickups/week 17 704.49$ 11,976$ 694.04$ 11,799$ 599.37$ 10,189$ 544.88$ 9,263$ 4 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week 6 939.32$ 5,636$ 921.09$ 5,527$ 791.80$ 4,751$ 719.82$ 4,319$ 4 Cubic Yard, 5 pickups/week 1,174.15$ -$ 1,148.12$ -$ 984.31$ -$ 894.83$ -$ 4 Cubic Yard, 6 pickups/week 1 1,408.98$ 1,375.18$ 1,183.63$ 1,069.88$ 1,070$ 6 Cubic Yard, 1 pickup/week 106 312.47$ 33,122$ 334.32$ 35,438$ 285.24$ 30,235$ 259.31$ 27,487$ 6 Cubic Yard, 2 pickups/week 46 624.94$ 28,747$ 653.25$ 30,050$ 533.53$ 24,542$ 495.03$ 22,771$ 6 Cubic Yard, 3 pickups/week 9 937.41$ 8,437$ 972.36$ 8,751$ 803.78$ 7,234$ 730.71$ 6,576$ 6 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week 2 1,249.88$ 2,500$ 1,291.39$ 2,583$ 1,063.06$ 2,126$ 966.42$ 1,933$ 6 Cubic Yard, 5 pickups/week 1 1,562.35$ 1,562$ 1,610.42$ 1,610$ 1,322.35$ 1,322$ 1,202.14$ 1,202$ 6 Cubic Yard, 6 pickups/week 1,874.82$ 1,929.48$ 1,587.93$ 1,437.87$ -$ 8 Cubic Yard, 1 pickup/week 88 388.91$ 34,224$ 428.09$ 37,672$ 355.03$ 31,243$ 322.75$ 28,402$ 8 Cubic Yard, 2 pickups/week 46 777.82$ 35,780$ 839.08$ 38,598$ 681.11$ 31,331$ 619.19$ 28,483$ 8 Cubic Yard, 3 pickups/week 17 1,166.73$ 19,834$ 1,250.08$ 21,251$ 1,007.18$ 17,122$ 915.62$ 15,566$ 8 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week 1,555.64$ -$ 1,661.10$ -$ 1,333.24$ -$ 1,212.04$ -$ 8 Cubic Yard, 5 pickups/week 7 1,944.55$ 13,612$ 2,072.11$ 14,505$ 1,659.32$ 11,615$ 1,508.47$ 10,559$ 8 Cubic Yard, 6 pickups/week 2 2,333.46$ 4,667$ 2,483.13$ 4,966$ 1,992.55$ 3,985$ 1,804.93$ 3,610$ Extra Units, 32-gallon equivalent, per pickup 6.39$ -$ 6.12$ -$ 5.90$ -$ -$ Extra Units, loose cubic yard in container, per pick-up 16.07$ -$ 25.62$ -$ 12.12$ -$ -$ Extra Units, Extra loose yard on ground, per pickup 26.07$ -$ 25.62$ -$ 21.12$ -$ -$

Haul Haul Haul HaulService Level (based on pick ups) Charge Charge Charge Charge

Commercial Non-compacted 10-15 cubic yard Drop-box (0 boxes) 145.10$ -$ 161.35$ -$ 159.61$ -$ 145.10$ -$ Drop-box Non-compacted 20 cubic yard Drop-box (4 boxes) 1 145.10$ 145$ 161.35$ 161$ 159.61$ 160$ 145.10$ 145$ Collection Non-compacted 25 cubic yard Drop-box (6 boxes) 8 145.10$ 1,161$ 161.35$ 1,291$ 159.61$ 1,277$ 145.10$ 1,161$

Non-compacted 30 cubic yard Drop-box (6 boxes) 9 145.10$ 1,306$ 161.35$ 1,452$ 159.61$ 1,436$ 145.10$ 1,306$ Non-compacted 40 cubic yard Drop-box (0 boxes) 145.10$ -$ 161.35$ -$ 159.61$ -$ 145.10$ -$ Compacted 10-15 cubic yard Drop-box (0 boxes) 160.55$ -$ 176.99$ -$ 176.61$ -$ 160.55$ -$ Compacted 20 cubic yard Drop-box (10 boxes) 20 160.55$ 3,211$ 176.99$ 3,540$ 176.61$ 3,532$ 160.55$ 3,211$ Compacted 25 cubic yard Drop-box (15 boxes) 32 160.55$ 5,138$ 176.99$ 5,664$ 176.61$ 5,652$ 160.55$ 5,138$ Compacted 30 cubic yard Drop-box (8 boxes) 28 160.55$ 4,495$ 176.99$ 4,956$ 176.61$ 4,945$ 160.55$ 4,495$ Compacted 40 cubic yard Drop-box (3 boxes) 9 160.55$ 1,445$ 176.99$ 1,593$ 176.61$ 1,589$ 160.55$ 1,445$

Service Level2 Yard detachable Container 41.65$ -$ 136.56$ -$ 75.00$ -$ 73.28$ -$

Temporary 4 Yard detachable container 7 61.26$ 429$ 219.01$ 1,533$ 100.00$ 700$ 95.33$ 667$ Collection 6 Yard detachable container 7 80.41$ 563$ 300.78$ 2,105$ 125.00$ 875$ 116.70$ 817$ Hauling 8 Yard detachable container 99.22$ -$ 382.55$ -$ 150.00$ -$ -$

Non-compacted 10-15 cubic yard Drop-box 1 152.82$ 153$ 162.92$ 163$ 169.61$ 170$ 152.82$ 153$ Non-compacted 20 cubic yard Drop-box 2 152.82$ 306$ 162.92$ 326$ 169.61$ 339$ 152.82$ 306$ Non-compacted 25 cubic yard Drop-box 1 152.82$ 153$ 162.92$ 163$ 169.61$ 170$ 152.82$ 153$ Non-compacted 30 cubic yard Drop-box 5 152.82$ 764$ 162.92$ 815$ 169.61$ 848$ 152.82$ 764$ Non-compacted 40 cubic yard Drop-box 4 152.82$ 611$ 162.92$ 652$ 169.61$ 678$ 152.82$ 611$

Service LevelTemporary 2 Yard detachable container 8.20$ -$ 30.31$ -$ 32.00$ -$ 47.10$ -$ Collection 4 Yard detachable container 7 11.73$ 82$ 36.37$ 255$ 39.00$ 273$ 59.10$ 414$ Container 6 Yard detachable container 7 13.29$ 93$ 45.47$ 318$ 46.00$ 322$ 71.40$ 500$

Rental 8 Yard detachable container 16.09$ -$ 53.04$ -$ 53.00$ -$ -$ and DeliveryNon-compacted 10 cubic yard Drop-box 54.01$ -$ 57.89$ -$ 75.00$ -$ -$

Non-compacted 15 cubic yard Drop-box 1 61.76$ 62$ 65.77$ 66$ 75.00$ 75.00$ 54.01$ 54$ Non-compacted 20 cubic yard Drop-box 2 71.01$ 142$ 75.78$ 152$ 80.00$ 160$ Non-compacted 25 cubic yard Drop-box 1 80.26$ 80$ 85.78$ 86$ 80.00$ 80$ Non-compacted 30 cubic yard Drop-box 5 87.98$ 440$ 93.96$ 470$ 85.00$ 425$ Non-compacted 40 cubic yard Drop-box 4 103.44$ 414$ 110.23$ 441$ 85.00$ 340$ -$

Event Svc Delivery, provision, collection of a set of 3 carts (G, R,C) 8.77$ -$ 35.00$ -$ 75.00$ -$ -$ Service Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour

Hourly Rear/Side-load packer + driver 168.90$ 175.00$ 148.16$ 148.16$ Rates Front-load packer + driver 168.90$ 175.00$ 148.16$ 148.16$

Drop-box Truck + driver 168.90$ 175.00$ 148.16$ 148.16$ Additional Labor (per person) 80.42$ 85.00$ 70.54$ 70.54$

TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE: 13,371,260.52$ ############ ############ 11,670,904$ Cust Count Residential Bid Alternatives

(1) Contractor Billing $319,000.00 $104,848.00 $245,000.00(2) Customer Service and Recycling Center $348,000.00 $219,504.00 $150,000.00(3) 10-year Contract Length -$177,000.00 -$279,930.00 -$320,000.00(4) EoW Single-Family Garbage Collection -$1.89 -$1.52 -$3.15(5) Option for Older Collection Fleet -$236,000.00 $0.00 $0.00(6) Shift disposal to Shoreline Transfer Station (per week) $14,200.00 $18,832.17 $8,750.00(7) Shift disposal to Factoria Transfer Station (per week) $9,100.00 $8,378.00

Score

Current ContractYear 2017

Waste Management Recology Cleanscapes Republic Services

66.1 62.7 70Waste Management Recology Cleanscapes Republic Services

Page 1 of 1 3/27/17

Attachment 3

1

Kirkland Solid Waste RFP

Proponent Qualifications Interviews

City: Bothell Contractor Name: Recology Cleanscapes

Interviewee: Sabrina Combs Interview Date: April 17, 2017 Time: 2:30 PM

Interviewer: John MacGillivray

CUSTOMER SERVICE QUALITY

How would you rank your contractor’s overall external (Contractor to Customer) customer service? (1 to 10)

9.

What are the reasons for your score? Get a response back within 30 minutes. Staff gets involved immediately to resolve the request. See a lot of happy comments from customers.

Are you given the opportunity to review CSR scripts and information?

I looked at them in the beginning but I haven’t felt a need since I haven’t had the customer service issues. Always asked what they can do to better service your city.

Are there opportunities for the contractor to improve customer service?

Not sure how they would. Do such a good job of meeting our expectations. Very consistent high quality service.

CITY CUSTOMER SERVICE

How timely and thorough is the contractor in responding to your city’s requests or complaints?

Get a response back within 30 minutes.

How would you rate the customer service your contractor provides to you? (1 to 10)

9.

How easy or hard has it been to negotiate contract amendments or implement new services?

No amendments. Have done MOU letters, such as with the store opening delay. Worked out a transition of 37 WM customers to Recology.

Does the contractor regularly meet reporting requirements and is the data accurate?

Yes. Have done audits. Get a lot more data than what I used to receive from WM. A lot more detail. Have data for the store.

Do you feel like your contractor listens to you? Yes. Absolutely. Good at talking through details. Got my new boss up to speed. Door is always open.

How often do you meet with your contractor? Started with monthly meetings. We’re now doing quarterly.

How do you think the contractor views your City?

Present at events.

Attment 4

2

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

How involved are you in the creation of education and outreach materials?

Some they bring to me. Some are my ideas. It’s a joint effort. Open to feedback from the City.

Have production deadlines been regularly met? Yes.

How would you rate the overall quality of contractor‐produced education and outreach materials? (1 to 10)

Excellent. Have a designer in staff.

Does your contractor use alternative methods of communication such as apps and social media? If so, what is the overall quality of these methods?

Facebook. Use texting. Don’t really need an app because Facebook is good.

What is the overall quality of their website? (1 to 10)

A little slow but they’re launching a new one

Are you notified when the website is edited or updated?

They do it pretty regularly. Weather update page is right on the front page. Everything is on one place.

Are you given the opportunity to suggest edits to the contractor’s website content?

Open to adding or changing content. Don’t really use it much in the field. Like the way it’s broken down.

How dedicated do you think your contractor is to the principles waste reduction and recycling?

Huge. Five point system for products in their store for recycled content. Big on waste reduction. Newsletter has great tips.

Does your contractor promote collaboration on education and outreach collateral with their other contract cities?

Open to it. The store flyer is an example.

OPERATIONS

How would you rate communication during inclement weather events? (1 to 10)

Been great. Get an email and a phone call and text alerts. Update their Facebook page. Information provided by 6 AM.

How would you rate the overall quality of your hauler’s inclement weather plan? (1 to 10)

Try to move the pickup day one day forward if they can. Like their extended event plan for drop sites. Worked with PW to identify sites.

How is your relationship with the operations and route managers? Are they responsive?

They’re great. Commitment to serving customers.

Are you aware of any negative interactions drivers have had with customers?

A couple of incidents. One in which the driver was in the wrong. Kevin was transparent with what happened and explained what they were going to do. Have had a couple of accidents but never an escalation where it ends up on my desk.

How would you rate your contractor’s spill prevention and spill response protocols?

8. Have been working through some new processes and staff. They were willing to sit down with City to make improvements to their response to meet City standards.

3

CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT TEAM

What is your contractor’s management team’s track record for following through on commitments?

Always follow through. Made educational cards to provide outreach on container sizes to increase diversion and reduce waste. They’re honest and upfront and willing to pivot to something else if it’s not working.

How would you rate the management team’s overall level of expertise and experience? (1 to 10)

9.

Do you feel like you have access to the various levels of middle and upper management?

Kevin is very open about providing information on staff changes or reorganizations.

Have you ever gone through a transition from one contractor to another? If so can you tell me how the transition went?

Excellent. Kevin suggested that we do an early conversion of cart colors/deliveries and transition before the effective day of the contract in January. Had enough agents on the phone. Mailed information to customers. Store opening was a big success.

If you were given a second chance to choose another contractor, would you do so? If so, why?

No right now but I haven’t been through a full cycle with Recology. WM did a nice job meeting with me to re‐establish relationship with the small number of WM customers they service in Bothell.

OTHER

Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experience with your contractor?

The store has been a huge help for us as staff. 30% reduction in work time lost due to customer service complaints. Don’t have to hand out materials. No containers around City Hall.

1



City: Maple Valley Contractor Name: Recology Cleanscapes

Interviewee: Diana Pistoll Interview Date: April 10, 2017 Time: 9:00




10. Excellent. Don’t hear from many but when I do I just call the customer service line instead of calling staff.

What are the reasons for your score? Not getting in complaints. They segregate their reports/logs so I can see the type of complaints and requests. They did have some issues with no outreach on charging extras for lids being open more than 6 inches but they credited customers.


Yes. Every single thing that Recology puts out I review.


Yes. There have been some Internet Explorer web navigation issues. People couldn’t have their billing done through an auto deduct on credit card but that may have changed.



Very timely. If an issue gets up to my level they are responsive.


8. We don’t have a regular meeting schedule. Need to meet at least quarterly since some things got out of whack. They’re proactive in letting me know about staff changes. Super courteous staff. Kevin and Quinn have a lot of integrity. Neighborhood waste diversion incentive ($72K) program not implemented. Discussing repurposing this money for something else.


They’ve done a great job with parks collection services and clean up after parades.


Yes. In the beginning there was a little bit of errors in Styrofoam collection reporting. Pretty reliable overall, though.

Do you feel like your contractor listens to you? Yes.

How often do you meet with your contractor? Quarterly. More if needed.

2


Positively. Very fond of Kevin and Quinn.



They do allow me to put billing inserts in bills. There are some other education and outreach things that I would like to have delivered.

Have production deadlines been regularly met? It’s their own deadline so, yes, they do meet them. Good about letting me know the deadlines I need to meet.


Did have one issue about the guide in the first year. All the things you can recycle for free outside the blue cart were in the guide. In the second year, the guide had an insert with the guide that sent people to the Recology store which they don’t have in Maple Valley.


They have a text in capability. No one uses the texting service. Not aware of an application.


Haven’t visited it in a while. They do publish all of the residential rates.


I could but I don’t need to since they handle it.


Yes, but they manage it.


I think that they are really dedicated. There company has a history with waste reduction and recycling. Other companies are following their lead.


As far as I know it’s individual.

OPERATIONS


10.


Just one instance to test it. It’s good overall.


If I have an issue I can go to them. Neighborhood service was starting a little early (10 minutes to 7 AM). Trucks were sitting and idling in the street waiting to start collection. Recology spoke to their drivers and there will be no more early starts or idling. Pulled GPS to show that they were not there early but it was a commercial

3

driver arriving early to collect at a school so he could collect right at 7 AM.


Not really. One complaint about a rude driver. Carts being left in the wrong place. Good respectful drivers overall.


10+. Have had a large spill which they mitigated to absolute perfections. Called DOE. City crews didn’t need to do anything.



When they say they’re going to do something they do it. Neighborhood waste rewards was slow on the uptake. They’re humble and they apologize for mistakes.


They’re completely capable.


Yes. Kevin calls me right back.


I think they had a decent program when they launched. Had several different outreach milestones that they hit. Issues with closing out WM stuff for billing but that was WM’s fault not Recology. Not much new cart deliveries since we owned our carts. Offered way more cart sizes. Very smooth transition.


Very happy with Recology.

OTHER


I think they all can do it but Recology is very humble and they are great people.

1



City: Shoreline Contractor Name: Recology Cleanscapes

Interviewee: Rika Cecil Interview Date: April 7, 2017 Time: 10:00




10.

What are the reasons for your score? They have local customer service. They also have flexibility when unusual situations come up. One example is a customer who does not live in Shoreline year round. They came up with a way to get him in compliance with their new mandatory service ordinance. They’re done a great job.


Haven’t asked to review. They do send a monthly report with CSR responses to customer inquiries and complaints.


Had Recology as a contractor since 2008. They have definitely improved their customer service since then.



Incredibly timely and thorough. They back it up with emails.


10


Recently with new contract. Each specific issue resolved. They are trustworthy and willing to discuss new services and willing to compromise. They have been very attentive to implementing our mandatory service ordinance.


Yes and the data is accurate.

Do you feel like your contractor listens to you? Yes. They change their actions accordingly.

How often do you meet with your contractor? Weekly due to new contract. They are doing door to door outreach in July due to mandatory collection ordinance.

2


At the top. Highly value out city. We were one of their first cities so we have a special relationship. We work very well together.



They draft materials up and we review. If the city has edits we work together to make them.



9


In new contract. New website is under development. Will have mobile app. I assisted with the with website upgrade.


Upgrading. Current site is an 8.


Kind of depends on the update needed but we work together.


Yes.


100% committed. Building a new store in Shoreline schedule to open at the end of April.


Impression is that they’re working together with other cities.

OPERATIONS


10


8 or 9. With new staff roles can change. Open to hearing issues that come up. Final plan is a 10.


Very responsive. Same day response.


In first contract. In first month of first contract there was a driver who was picking up recycling and garbage at the same time. Driver leaving engine on to eat lunch but that was taken care of.


Very quick. Always get a call. Call DOE directly. Back of trucks has a sign with a city number to report spills.



Absolutely.

3


10


Absolutely. Have met upper and top management throughout the organization.


Recology found the WM address data was bogus. Took a lot of work. Excellent transition from old agreement to new agreement. We embedded yard waste service in current contract. Transition to mandatory service has been good and gone smoothly. Mandatory was new this time and they were flexibly in coming up with ways to help people comply like providing a monthly service option with EOW recycling and weekly yard waste service. They don’t let things slip.


No way! Out of state customer service for other contractors has not comparison to local.

OTHER


Overall they have high quality of service and it’s worth every dollar that they charge. They make life very easy.

1



City: Bellevue Contractor Name: Republic Services

Interviewee: Stephanie Schwenger Interview Date: April 10, 2017 Time: 11:00




Hard to answer because they were going to move from a local call center to a regional call center model in Arizona. A bunch of the CSRs left as a consequence so they’re hiring new people. Then they decided to wait due to the Sammamish and Renton implementations. Very long wait times recently. Excluding that, I would say an 8.

What are the reasons for your score? See above.


They tell me they have something similar to WM. No they have not asked me to review. We have been involved in developing scripts but we can’t verify they’re in use. WM is more standardized. They do currently have local call center reps which are well versed.


Previously we had some instances where they were actively discouraging commercial customers from signing up for commercial organics service. Room for improvement in getting new reps up to speed.



Very timely. Work with Margo Keaney previously and we work with Abby Hart now.


Very good from Abby.


Hard. Last spring we discovered that they were not properly issuing customer credits for late container deliveries. The contract language was interpreted unilaterally by Republic. The City disagreed with the interpretation. This was first brought up in spring but not resolved until August. The new GM then issued a new interpretation of the container delivery rules. Taken a year to resolve due to arguing back and

2

forth. In the first year of the contract we had a lot of issues with commercial organics collection.


Pretty accurate. I have to check each month to make corrections.


How often do you meet with your contractor? Several times per month. Contract very prescriptive with performance fees and performance bonuses. A lot to manage on both sides.


I think they’ve been the only provider that’s operated in Bellevue to 50+ years. It’s a big point of pride for them. It’s better than it was during the first two years of the new contract.



Very.

Have production deadlines been regularly met? No. Issue has been the city review times. We’ve had a lot of issues with their edits not getting incorporated and having to go through multiple drafts with a fine tooth comb. Contracted graphic design firm has had difficulty meeting deadlines.


Average.


They have an app called My Resources and the website. Mostly see the complaints about the website and app being difficult to use. But I just see the complaints, however. The website isn’t controlled locally and changed must be submitted to corporate. They also changed URL for the Bellevue page without notifying us. Just got fixed after it was first discovered in October 2016.


Average. Lots of links to .pdfs.


Sometimes.


Yes, it’s in our contract. We demand it.


Pretty dedicated. Noticed issues with organics collection.


No, individually.

3

OPERATIONS


Very good.


Pretty good. They have a clear protocols in place. Might not report until mid to late afternoon if they were able to complete a route.


Depends on the person but generally yes.


No.


We have some parameters in the contract. Would like to have timelier reporting of spills so we can report to operations and maintenance folks. There’s some room for improvement.



We’ve had some management turnover at the GM level. NW area president has been filling in in that role. Encouraged by new contract manager assigned to Bellevue. New GM is an unknown quantity.


Very experienced.


I don’t get to talk to them but the lines of communication are open.


We did and operational audit and things went pretty well transitioning from the old to the new contract. Outreach and education went poorly. Missing deadlines. Poor quality. Drafts provided for City review were poor. Just one person doing the education and outreach. No dedicated education and outreach team like other companies.


Not comfortable answering that.

OTHER


No.

1



City: Renton Contractor Name: Republic Services

Interviewee: Linda Knight Interview Date: April 7, 2017 Time: 11:00




Bad timing since we’re doing an implementation. Several different segment. Issues are the issues that the customer doesn’t really like. Overall was reasonable. They agreed to locate an office in Renton Mon‐Fri and half day on Saturday. Designated number for Renton. Dedicated staff to Renton. Focused on local, local, local that their corporate is looking to move to a regional call center in Phoenix. Lost staff due to potential move to Phoenix which reduced staff ability to respond to during the transition and created long wait times. Done a pretty good job given transition to billing agent. Boss reported that she called the call center to check wait times and there were limited delays.



Did not review. System is quite old compared to WM. Billing system looks like it’s still in DOS. Provided list of FAQs. Not perfect and some misinformation has been reported.


See above.



They’ve been very good and responsive. Agreeing to meet. Providing customer billing information.


9


Really quite easy compared to past with WM. Customer service storefront.


Yes, they’ve met their first milestones for reports for monthly tonnage reports. Invoices have come and they’re been accurate.

2

Do you feel like your contractor listens to you? Yes. I think that they do. They definitely did pre‐implementation. They’ve been responsive and they’re stepped up to the plate.

How often do you meet with your contractor? Every two weeks. Intending on meeting at least monthly. They’ve always made themselves available. No meetings with call center staff. Mostly virtual meetings (go to meeting)


Above average. Donated to some areas that we support like communities and schools. WM pulled their participation/booth in Renton River Days after they lost the contract and Republic stepped up and donated to the event and had a booth.



Sort of. They produce them and we review and edit. WM was a little more sophisticated. Was used to WM standards. Different than what I was used to. Republic said that they had done testing. Open and flexible.

Have production deadlines been regularly met? Met all deadline.


8. They’re good. Some staff liked them some thought they were serviceable.


My Resource App. I had a demo and I like it. Provides good tools for people that are used to using apps. A lot of ability to take credit card payments but no cash. Have done auto dialer callouts.


Not thrilled with it. Claim they’ve done usability testing. The way it is set up with different icons. Getting the info immediately is good but the visuals aren’t good.


Have identified things not functioning in pre‐implementation. Good about adding information but there is still work. Could have been better in term of implementation.


Have suggested that they make improvements.


I think they’re above average. Pride themselves on their MRF. Not a high level of enthusiasm.


Too early.

3

OPERATIONS


Bungled. It might not have been bungled if it had happened later in the contract. Took them by surprise. EOW with double next regular service day. Made customers concerned about having to miss 4 weeks.


Good job implementing. Collected next Saturday. They agreed to the policy but tey didn’t really understand what it would take to recover.


Yes they’ve been great and responsive. Hired a lot of experienced drivers from WM. Very proactive. Brand new trucks but the trucks are different than what many were used to drive. They work through repeat issues.


No. A few cable lines torn down.


No spills yet. Have had issues with equipment. Trucks are different using curatto can. No seal when the curatto is dumped into the hopper which creates come litter and blow outs. They have sent out sweepers to pick up litter.



They’ve been really good and take me seriously. Work toward solutions. Have a go to person to fix problems.


I have a lot of confidence that the relationship will get tighter and more seamless in terms of communication and working collaboratively. Open to new ideas and open to helping us reach our WPR goals.


Yes.


See discussions above.


I think WM is working on making improvements but they’re not at the level we would expect them to be.

OTHER


Republic corporate tends to give local area more autonomy to run things they’re own way.

1



City: Sammamish Contractor Name: Republic Services

Interviewee: Beth Goldberg Interview Date: April 17, 2017 Time: 11:00




Very good.

What are the reasons for your score? They’ve been very patient with customers. Arranged for carryout service for a challenging customer.


I assume they have something similar but I haven’t asked to review them.


Some inaccuracies provided to customers.



Very timely.


Very good.


Klahannee is not under new contract since it was recently annexed. Tried to fold them in but weren’t able to reach and agreement.


Yes.


How often do you meet with your contractor? Interactions by phone. Brought our acting GM to meet her. Janet very good about providing substitute contactors.


Very much a part of the community. Community awards, events, and donations. Janet attends chamber luncheons. Farmers Market participation.



They do it all. They produced materials which were reviewed by the city.

Have production deadlines been regularly met? Yes. Weekly emails with milestones.

2


Good.


Not aware of the extent to which they’re using social media. Website is very good. Very involved in the community.


Very good.


No. Not sure if we have that requirement.


If I see something, they would fix it. View them as a partner. Put up info on propane tank incident.


I think they’re very dedicated. Simultaneously they’re thinking about what’s practical.


Just for us.

OPERATIONS


Some complaints about Republic that were false. Very good, much better than WM.


Rate it as good. Sammamish is unique with higher elevations which is an added challenge.


They have been but I tend to go through Janet.


I am not aware of any negative interactions.


Very good. Had a couple of tests of that. Disposal of propane tanks in recycling container. A small fire was started in the truck. The truck expels all of the trash automatically. Republic was very responsive in working on the cleanup. Wet paint in garbage and it spilled. City was alerted and it was cleaned up. Did have some issues with WM not cleaning up spills.



They have been good at following through.


Very good. Excellent.


Yes.

3


I would say the transition has gone really well. As well as good be expected. They have been very responsive. Janet’s been very responsive.


No regrets.

OTHER


Very good overall. A really good partner.

1



City: Auburn Contractor Name: Waste Management

Interviewee: Joan Nelson Interview Date: April 13, 2017 Time: 2:00




6.

What are the reasons for your score? Call center interactions and how they handle customers are not to Auburn’s standards. Denie handles them quickly but some CSRs make customers upset.


Send to us on a monthly basis. Better than the old green pages. Good about incorporating comments. Updated with city events.


Yes. If they continue to emphasize the importance of CSRs reading green pages.



They’re very timely.


7.


Haven’t done any.


They very good with monthly reports and they’re accurate.

Do you feel like your contractor listens to you? They do but they’re a large company with things in different places. Every sixth months we feel like we’re repeating repeating ourselves.

How often do you meet with your contractor? Try to meet once a month.


Less passionate than Recology who provides littler pick up service. Middle of the road in terms of their view of our city.



Review every piece that goes out. Some pieces Auburn has created. Very involved. Not happy if

2

something goes out that we don’t know about. Pretty collaborative.



9.


Have a Facebook page but not directed at city. No app.


Don’t go to it very often. It’s okay.


Only involved if we want to put something on the website.


Yes. They’re very accommodating.


I think they they’re pretty committed and they invest in and look at different technology.


Willing to collaborate. Willing to share.

OPERATIONS


The recent one we had some communication struggles. Hard getting information from them to city so they could provide info to city customers. Not getting information in time. The District Manager decided to put out a message on their website that they were going to shift everyone’s pickup schedule forward one day like a holiday schedule. Incorrect message still went out and they didn’t observe double load policy in the plan.


If they follow it, it’s a great plan. Willing to work with us if there are more than two consecutive weeks missed.


Yes.


Mostly get compliments. More positive than negative.


Good. Have it down and they contact us and we contact our internal maintenance staff. Good at cleaning them up.

3



I think they’re good at following through on commitments.


We have a somewhat inexperience route manager team. Have had some struggles.


Robin is very involved. Not much access to anyone above Robin.


Not as an overall hauler but in annexation areas. WM transitions were very smooth in terms of outreach, deliveries, removals, seamless process. Good coordination.


OTHER


They’re very willing to correct mistakes and really do want to provide the best service they can provide. Accommodating in meeting our needs.

1



City: Federal Way Contractor Name: Waste Management

Interviewee: Rob Van Orsow Interview Date: April 13, 2017 Time: 3:00




Pretty high number. Low number of misses and complaints.



Yes. Some unique things to Federal Way that they need to be aware of.


There’s room for improvement. Want my customers to get the best value.



Very responsive. City Desk is responsive. Getting familiar with people in Kirkland office.


B+ or A‐


Took over two years to negotiate a contract and had to negotiate new elements two years after that contract was signed.


Yes, they meet deadlines but its self‐reported data so there’s no way to verify. They fix mistakes if needed.


How often do you meet with your contractor? Once per month for operations and once per week call with Laura.


Good corporate partner. They’re walking the talk. Doing the things they need to be involved with sponsorships and events.



Focus on newsletter and recycling event flyer. Work together on other things like billing inserts. WM does the drafting on the basic ones like the rates sheets and calendar. Lots of back and forth. Sometimes specific instructions are disregarded by their subcontractor.

Have production deadlines been regularly met? Missed some deadlines. Regression during middle of the contract. Things have improved.

2

Met deadlines for 2017 packet. Did not meet prior year.


We’re very particular about graphics and layout and details. 6.


They do social media with Facebook. Solicited likes to get followers. Messaging done by a third party out of Portland. More of a media production for them. Have seen some inconsistencies concerning service days with the app. Impressed that you can see when your accounts has been serviced. Jury is still out on the app.


Better graphic look than our website. Have to remind them to update it and keep it current.


They have on occasion other times not so much.


Yes. They’re responsive then we do suggest edits. Feel like sometimes we’re doing the work for them.


Good enthusiasm from education and outreach staff. Good passion from Hannah.


Generally just the city.

OPERATIONS


They made a decision at the District Manager level to move service day forward one day which causes a huge problem if the event continues for the rest of the week. Auto‐dialer went out in the evening saying that service would be provided the next day.


A lot of effort has gone into the development of the plan. The plan itself is adequate and designed to meet our objectives. Need to follow it.


Good, very responsive. Willing to take on any issues.


Mostly he said she said. There’s usually two sides to the story. Drivers are very courteous and they have a tough job to do.


Very responsive. Well trained.

3



They’ve been good at following through. They’ve been much more communicative and asking for feedback. Do have situations that come up and it seems like things drag out longer than they need to because they’re a large company.


A lot of experience.


Reach out to Robin regularly. Mary has been open to communication.


Just contract to contract.


If it would mean better service for our ratepayers and better rates I would be derelict to not do so. Not in a rush to get rid of WM and they’re trying to rise to the occasion. They’re a good partner.

OTHER


No, this is comprehensive.

1



City: Redmond Contractor Name: Waste Management

Interviewee: Jeralyn Roetemeyer Interview Date: April 7, 2017 Time: 9:00




7

What are the reasons for your score? Typical. We do get some complaints about responses from the customer service center in Phoenix. Good overall but get complaints about wrong information being provided to customers. There has been some customer confusion.


Not sure. Personally haven’t requested it but it may have been offered to other city staff.


There will always be mistakes. Have done everything in their control and have done a good job trying to address customer service issues. They could probably do more.



Timely.


9. Pretty responsive.


We recently negotiated a new contract. It was satisfactory, you win some you lose some. No contract amendments lately. The ones we’ve done were pretty easy. Satisfactory to above satisfactory. Getting new services were difficult in the negotiation. Under old contract they were generally agreeable to adding new services.


We receive monthly reports and data. We don’t audit information for accuracy. Annual report has had errors in the past which were corrected. 90% or higher accuracy.


How often do you meet with your contractor? Quarterly and as needed.


Highly value city customers and our city vision. They are very engaged in community with

2

programs like Touch a truck. I’d rate them high in this category.



Very engaged. Based on feedback I’ve receive the team would be rated very high.



9


No apps. Some social media that outfaces to the public. Doesn’t regularly use social media that I’m aware of.


Well organized. Have link on city website. Customer use the WM website quite a bit. Not sure if they have Facebook page. I’d rate it a 9.


Not that I’m aware of. My outreach staff may be. We’re probably notified about major revisions.


Yes.


Generally I think they’re committed. People at the MRF. Emily is committed. As long as it doesn’t affect their bottom line.


Not that I’m aware of.

OPERATIONS


High. 9


Improved in last five years. Have a snow plan but haven’t have to implement due to short duration. There is a plan for extended snow events. I have a high confidence that operations would take care of it.


Very response to me and staff. I have a strong relationship with operations which is the most important relationship.


They do share complaint data in monthly reports. Not aware of any major incidents. No major actions taken. A driver helped solve a crime as a witness. One driver found a wallet and returned to its owner. Positive interactions have outweighed negative.


A little inconsistent. 7 or 8. They have improved. They have our spill hotline number.

3



It has improved. They are consistent in responding to us and addressing concerns whether it be rate increases. If there is an error, they get it fixed quickly and responsively. For example, they withheld sending out CPI notification letters to customers so we could just send out one letter that represented both the tipping fee and CPI increases. Good customer service. Responsive to issues in the field. They hold themselves accountable and take corrective actions.


New contract person, Emily, who is relatively new. She provides great customer service but has some learning to do. She’s still on a learning curve but she’s willing to dive in and learn things. She owns her mistakes. Overall it’s satisfactory. I have confidence in their ability to improve. Other skills outweigh lack of experience.


Absolutely.


All terms and conditions have been me and they’re all of the new services.


Don’t have the information to answer that.

OTHER


They have improved their customer service and their contract management. I’d like to see them be more innovative and open to services such as a storefront. They were very resistant to this concept during our negotiations.

CITY OF KIRKLAND Department of Public Works 123 Fifth ...Council/Council+Packets/06… ·...

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF KIRKLAND Department of Public Works 123 Fifth ...Council/Council+Packets/06… ·...