My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013_0826_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2013
>
2013_0826_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2013 2:06:35 PM
Creation date
8/27/2013 2:11:18 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> Date: 8/26/2013 <br /> Item No.: 13.a <br />Department Approval City Manager Approval <br />Item Description: Authorize Staff to Negotia te a Five-Year Recycling Services Contract <br />Page 1 of 5 <br />B ACKGROUND 1 <br />Roseville has contracted for cu rbside recycling service since 1992 and multi-family recycling 2 <br />service since 2003. The current c ontract expires at the end of 2013. At the July 1 meeting, the 3 <br />Council directed staff to issue a Request Fo r Proposals (RFP) for recycling services. 4 <br />Three companies submitted proposals: Alli ed Waste, Eureka Recycling, and Waste 5 <br />Management. All proposals included pr icing on four different scenarios: 6 <br /> Three year contract, ve ndor owns the carts 7 <br /> Three year contract, city owns the carts 8 <br /> Five year contract, ve ndor owns the carts 9 <br /> Five year contract, city owns the carts 10 <br />Pricing proposals were reviewed by Foth Infras tructure & Environment, LLC who’s services 11 <br />were provided by Ramsey County at no charge to Roseville. 12 <br />A proposal review committee of Public Works Dir ector Duane Schwartz, Finance Director Chris 13 <br />Miller, Public Works Commission Member Jim De Benedet, Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt, 14 <br />and Ramsey County Environmental Health staff member Rae Frank evaluated the proposals on 15 <br />Project Capability, How Well Proposals Meets Community Values (established by the Public 16 <br />Works Commission), and Value Added Plan. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Evaluation Criteria and Weighting <br />RFP Base Specifications Pass/Fail <br /> <br />Category Weight <br />Project Capability 20% <br />How Well Proposal Meets Community <br />Values <br />20% <br />Price 40% <br />Past Performance (Survey of Other Cities) 10% <br />Value Added Plan 10% <br />Subtotal 100% <br />Finalists <br />Interview – clarification phase <br />Total 100%
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.