City of Cockburn Minutes – SMRC RRRC WCF Odour Issue – 10 February 2011
16. ENGINEERING AND WORKS DIVISION ISSUES
16.1 (MINUTE NO 4449) (OCM 10/2/2011) – TENDER NO. RFT23/2010 – DESIGN AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CIVIL WORKS) CELL 7 CONSTRUCTION – HENDERSON WASTE RECOVERY PARK (RFT23/2010) (L DAVIESON) (ATTACH)
RECOMMENDATION
That Council accept the joint tender submitted by I W Projects/Bowman and Associates (Alternative No. 3) for Tender RFT 23/2010 – Design and Project Management Services (Civil Works) Cell 7 Construction, for a lump-sum value of $290,000 GST exclusive.
COUNCIL DECISION
MOVED Clr S Limbert SECONDED Clr V Oliver that the recommendation be adopted.
Background
The City of Cockburn has operated the HWRP in Rockingham Road, Henderson since 1990. Stage 1 (Cells 1, 2 &3) was completed in 2000. Cell 4 was granted approval in 2000, Cell 5 was granted approval in Feb 2004 and Cell 6 was granted approval in October 2007. In 2010 staff applied for and received a Works Approval for Cell 7 (refer to map attached).
The HWRP provides an essential service to the Kwinana Industrial strip and many other commercial and domestic users where metropolitan landfill capacity is limited. It is estimated that HWRP will attract, on average around 150,000 tonnes of refuse per year over the next ten years. Accordingly, a minimum design capacity for Cell 7 is 950,000m³ or 807,000 tonnes of waste.
The City of Cockburn (the Principal) is seeking the services of a qualified and experienced Civil Works Design and Project Management Consultant to undertake the design, documentation and project management of the construction of Cell 7.
The scope of services includes:
1 . Designing of a lined Cell 7 suitable to accept Class II and III waste.
2 . Preparation of draft tender documentation and evaluation of tender submissions; and evaluation report.
3 . Supervision of the construction of Cell 7.
4 . Provision of a Quality Assurance Construction Report and ‘As Constructed’ Drawings/Plans.
5 . Designing and supervising the relocation of existing and/or construction of new leachate infrastructure.
6 . Advising on the alterations to Cells 1, 2 and 3 storm water drainage.
7 . Advising on the realignment of the service road around the proposed Cell 7 footprint.
8 . Advising on the sampling, testing and removal of any contaminated soil beneath existing infrastructure.
9. Advising on the relocation of existing and/or construction of new wash down bay and pond, bore water dam, quick fill emergency pump house and standpipe, fencing and power lines; if relocation and/or construction is necessary.
The proposed Contract shall be in force for a period of two (2) years from the date of award of the Contract, with a Principal instigated option to extend for up to a further twelve (12) months to allow for any variations to the construction completion date and defects liability period.
The Principal’s expectation is that the Contract will commence in March 2011 and the construction of Cell 7 be completed by 30 June 2012.
Submission
Four (4) tender submissions were received for RFT 23/2010 from:
1. I W Projects
2. Cardno WA
3. URS Australia
4. GHD Pty Ltd.
I W Project submitted a conforming tender and 3 alternative tenders.
Alternative Tender 1 – is submitted as a joint tender by both IW Projects and Bowman and Associates who are two specialist waste management consulting companies.
Alternative Tender 2 – is submitted by IW Projects. This alternate tender proposes a lump sum fee in exchange for .the percentage fee stipulated in the contract document.
Alternative Tender 3 – is submitted as a joint tender by both IW Projects and Bowman & Associates. This alternate tender proposes a lump sum fee in exchange for .the percentage fee stipulated in the contract document.
Cardno WA, URS Australia and GHD P/L have requested modifications to the General Conditions of Contract if successful.
Report
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation
The tender submissions were evaluated by:
1. Lyall Davieson – Waste Manager (CoC)
2. Jadranka Kiurski – Manager of Engineering (CoC)
3. Brendan Doherty – Manager of Engineering Services (SMRC)
4. Michael Haynes – Recovery Park Coordinator (CoC)
Mrs Jadranka Kiurski has previously been involved in the design and development of Cells 4, 5 & 6 at HWRP in her role as Project Engineer and Project Manager for the City. Mr Davieson and Mr Haynes are currently engaged in the management of the facility and have considerable experience in the waste industry.
Brendan Doherty is the Manager Engineering Services at the SMRC and was included on the panel as an independent assessor given his industry experience, landfill design and project management experience.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
16.2 (MINUTE NO 4450) (OCM 10/2/2011) – AMENDMENTS TO BULK VERGE COLLECTION SERVICE FOR 2011/12 (ES/W/001) (L DAVIESON)
RECOMMENDATION
That Council
(1) support the alteration to the Bulk Verge Collection Program from 3 greenwaste collections and 1 junk collection p.a. to 2 green waste collections and 2 junk collections p.a. for a one year trial to be conducted throughout the 2011/12 financial year;
(2) approach the SMRC with the proposal to trial the amendments to the verge collection service for a 1 year period commencing in July 2011; and
(3) ensure that all marketing and communication mediums (including the waste calendars produced by the SMRC) are amended to accurately reflect the amendments to the junk and green waste collections.
COUNCIL DECISION
MOVED Clr S Limbert SECONDED Clr V Oliver that the recommendation be adopted.
Background
Traditionally the bulk verge collection program consists of three greenwaste collections and one junk collection annually over five zones. Whilst the number of verge collections is prescribed by our agreement with the SMRC (the recipient of our green waste), the City determines the manner in which waste is collected and by what means. Currently the service is provided by contract although it is our intention to conduct the service in-house in the 2011/12 financial year.
Recently the City altered the bulk verge collection to 11 zones over a 40 week period throughout the year to enable the service to better accommodate growth in our district. As part of our broad service review, we believe that amending the service to increase the number of junk collections at the expense of 1 green waste collection may result in a better and more valuable service to the community.
Submission
The Waste Services Unit proposes to amend the verge collection service to 2 green waste collections and 2 junk collections p.a. for a one year trial throughout the City of Cockburn (excluding rural properties).
Report
The Proposal
In 2010/11 the bulk verge waste calendar identified greenwaste collections throughout a 10 week period commencing on 5 July, 7 February and 18 April. The 10 week junk collection for this year commenced on 13 September (refer to the Table below).
The proposal is to replace the greenwaste round commencing 7 February (unfavourable time to prune) with a junk collection and then balance the calendar to alternate between greenwaste and junk collections throughout the year as detailed below.
Justification
The proposal to reconfigure the bulk verge calendar was driven by:
1 . Resident requests for 2 junk collections.
2 . Low greenwaste volumes for 2 of the 3 greenwaste collections.
3 . A heavily patronised junk collection.
4 . A desire to spread the junk collection volumes more evenly over the year given the City’s intention to undertake this service in late 2011.
is a 6% decrease from the 2008/09 green waste tonnages of 2409. A total of 1770 tonnes of junk waste was collected in 2009/10 which was a 32.5% increase on 2008/09 figure of 1335 tonnes. When you consider that the green waste tonnages are distributed over 3 collections per annum it is clear that there is a greater need to balance the disposed tonnages in order to achieve efficiencies in our collection operation. We believe that amending the configurations of the collection will achieve this outcome.
The potential disadvantages of amending the service are:
1 . Greenwaste volumes may increase per collection which will subsequently increase the service times and completion of each area.
2 . Despite our marketing and communication strategies, not all residents read the relevant information and could become confused by further changes to the program.
3 . Trailer passes may become more fully utilised by those residents who have enjoyed 3 annual greenwaste collections.
Agreement with SMRC
Whilst it is anticipated that the green waste volumes generated annually through the 3 collections will not be significantly impacted by the reduction to 2, the number of green waste collections is prescribed in the RRRC Project Participants Agreement which the City is party to.
In 2000 a supplementary Deed was entered into between the member Councils of the SMRC RRRC project which, amongst other things, sought to standardise the waste collection service for the member Councils. Clause 5.2 of that Deed stipulates that 3 green waste collections (specifically Clause 5.2 (d)) should be established in each district. Whilst there are formal mechanisms to seek to amend the Deed of Agreement between the member Councils, it would preferable to do so only after the amendments to the service have been trialled and broad benefit can be demonstrated. A trial is therefore being proposed. The City cannot however institute the trial without receiving support from other member Councils of the SMRC.
Staff have had some initial discussions with the CEO of the SMRC, Mr Stuart McCall who has indicated that he would be happy to present a proposal to trial an amendment to the service for a 1 year period to the SMRC Council for consideration. The resolution seeks to formalise this approach.
Impact on Trailer Passes
Staff have been tracking presentation of trailer passes as means of monitoring the value of this service. Below is an analysis of the trailer passes redeemed from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010. These figures indicate that only 31.2% of residents utilise HWRP and 5.5% of that 31.2% of the community utilise the 6 tip passes provided.
Assuming that this trial is supported by Council, the City will continue to monitor the tip pass presentation to determine if patronage and frequency of use are impacted.
Strategic Plan/Policy Implications
Lifestyle and Aspiration Achievement
• To facilitate and provide an optimum range of community services and events.
• To deliver our services and to manage resources in a way that is cost effective without compromising quality.
• To identify community needs, aspirations, expectations and priorities for services that are required to meet the changing demographics of the district.
Natural Environmental Management
• To manage the City’s waste stream to achieve sustainable resource management, in an environmentally acceptable manner.
Budget/Financial Implications
It is anticipated that a second junk collection will cost more than a greenwaste service due to the greater collection and disposal costs. A second junk collection could attract up to 20% more junk waste if residents have 2 opportunities to participate. In addition, it can be expected that this second junk service may be patronised by residents who would have otherwise utilised a trailer pass to dispose of their bulky waste. These matters would be considered as part of the budget process in preparation for the 2011/12 financial year, however the City anticipates that the cost increase would be limited to approximately $70,000 (projected to increase from $820,000 to $890,000).
Legal Implications
Formalising this service in future years will require support by member Councils of the SMRC RRRC Projects and an amendment to the RRRC Project Participants Agreement.
Community Consultation
N/A
Attachments
N/A
Advice to Proponent(s) Submissioners
N/A
Implications of Section 3.18(3) Local Government Act, 1995
Nil.
