Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 08/22/05 <br />Minutes - Page 30 <br /> <br />enforceable at a city level, thus should not be included in the <br />RFP requirements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that, given the overall purpose of <br />recycling programs protecting the environment, this was a valid <br />point of comparison between contractors, and she supported <br />asking them to give us the requested information. <br /> <br />Mr. Pratt noted that the MPCA suggested including this language <br />in the RFP for enforcement purposes. <br /> <br />Page 13, Section 5.04, Personnel Requirements <br />Councilmember Schroeder questioned the type of two-way <br />communication device referenced. <br /> <br />Mr. Pratt advised that the language was suggested by Waste <br />Management in the last RFP process to be broad enough to cover <br />various communication devices. <br /> <br />Section 5.04, b) <br />Councilmember Schroeder questioned how the City would <br />evaluate those requirements. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that sometimes RFP's were <br />inclusive of items allowing potential future invocation of the <br />liquidated damage or termination clauses, for failing to live up to <br />performance standards. Mr. Anderson further noted that, while <br />not necessarily enforceable, if the City were not getting the <br />service they desired from the contractor, it added additional <br />weight for termination cause. <br /> <br />Page 13, Section 5.04, e) <br />Discussion included how to ensure safety and consideration, with <br />City Attorney Anderson recommending the language remain to <br />provide prospective bidders due notice of the City's <br />expectations. <br /> <br />Page 14, Section 5.05, Recycling Containers <br />Councilmember Schroeder questioned how the City planned to <br />manage the containers, and how it could be a requirement of the <br />RFP for enforcement purposes. <br />