2013-06-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

219 the carts, Mr. Pratt opined that this seemed to provide the vendor with a price 220 advantage and reducing future bids. However, Mr. Pratt noted that this had not 221 been evidenced in other communities, with incumbent vendors still proposing a 222 price increase on the next round. Mr. Pratt stated that it was staff s interpretation 223 that this may not be completely accurate, and suggested if the City owned the 224 carts, the City should experience a decrease on the second round. 225 approval. 226 Mr. Schwartz noted that purchase of bins over a three (3) year contract, with an 227 alternate (5) year contract, should help with amortizing cart costs. Mr. Schwartz 228 also noted that the RFP talks about requiring the vendor to collect the old bins /lids 229 and reimburse the City $1 /each. However, Mr. Schwartz questioned if that was 230 cost - effective; noting that when the switch was made to single sort in some areas, 231 customers were told to keep their bins for storage in their garages or for other 232 uses; and again questioned if that was a better option than paying $1 /bin. 233 251 In Section 8.01, Mr. Pratt noted the contract term of three (3) years and an 252 alternate for a five (5) year contract, based on past experience with the 2005 RFP 253 process. While feeling a five year contract would provide the City with lower 254 prices for the term and the ability to amortize costs better, Mr. Pratt advised that 255 the City Council's current policy was for every Professional Services Contract to 256 be reviewed after three (3) years; and any deviation would require City Council 257 approval. 258 259 At the request of Vice Chair Stenlund, Mr. Pratt advised that this Section would 260 require City Council approval of allowing the alternate proposal at five (5) years. 261 262 Member DeBenedet expressed his hope that the City Council would consider a 263 longer term contract. 264 Page 6 of 15