2013-05-28_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Schwartz concurred, expressing his personal opinion that this was not a Professional Services Contract. Member DeBenedet expressed his continuing skepticism for the single sort collection, and smaller versus larger carts; questioning the most viable option and frequency of collection. Mr. Pratt clarified that, as documented in Section 5.01 and meeting minutes of the April 2013 PWETC meeting when Chair Vanderwall opined that every other week collection would be a step backward for the City of Roseville, the weekly collection remained a specified requirement. However, Mr. Pratt noted that most vendors with single stream collection only did a bi-weekly collection; and therefore that option was also included in the general requirements. Mr. Schwartz noted that this then became part of the overall scoring issue. In terms of truck weight, Mr. Schwartz advised that he had spoken to a truck vendor that specifically built recycling vehicles, and in terms of weight (Section 5.02), that conversation provided the rationale for the 40,000 pound maximum loaded weight requirement. Mr. Pratt suggested that weight restriction may be based on rear axle weights from past truck specifications. Mr. Schwartz advised that for single-stream mechanical equipment with packer elements on the truck, they were typically constructed on tandem axle trucks; and questioned if that was a compliance issue with the State of the PWETC's preference for weight. Vice Chair Stenlund opined that it was very important to him to reduce the truck weight as much as possible; expressing his personal frustration with road wear from trucks skidding to stops and/or overloading. Vice Chair Stenlund opined that he preferred light loads relative to heavy loads. Regarding the contractor selection process and schedule outlined in Section 2 (page 5), Member DeBenedet questioned if it was feasible to get the RFP out by June 19, 2013. Mr. Pratt responded that it was a preliminary timeframe provided at the request of Mr. Schwartz as an example; however, he noted that nothing was scheduled at this point given the number of unknowns and lack of approvals. Mr. Schwartz noted that the concern was, if this goes to single sort with a new cart roll-out, etc., it would take three (3) months from contract finalization to cart delivery, so the process needed to continue moving forward without delay. While Member DeBenedet suggested there may be a one-month allowance on the schedule example, Mr. Schwartz noted that the current contract expires December 31, 2013. Vice Chair Stenlund also noted that it may not be good to start a new program with wheeled carts during the winter months. Page 7 of 15