CMCOAG – Canning Melville Community Odour Action Group

City Of Cockburn Minutes – SMRC RRRC WCF Odour Issue – 14 December 2006

16.2 (MINUTE NO 3345) (OCM 14/12/2006) – TENDER NO. 23/2006 – PROVISION OF A BULK WASTE VERGE COLLECTION SERVICE (4903) (ML) (ATTACH)

RECOMMENDATION
That Council:

(1) award Tender No. RFT 23/2006 – Provision of a Bulk Waste Verge Collection Service to Kwinana Recycle Services for an initial three (3) year period at rates of $125/tonne (excl. GST) for greenwaste, $135/tonne (excl GST) for Junk collection and $137/tonne (excl GST) for the combined rural greenwaste and junk collection;

(2) 6 months prior to expiry of Tender No. RFT 23/2006 – Provision of a Bulk Waste Verge Collection Service, the Director Engineering & Works present a report and benefit cost analysis for Council to undertake the service in-house.

COUNCIL DECISION
MOVED Clr S Limbert SECONDED Clr T Romano that the recommendation be adopted.

Background
The City of Cockburn currently provides 3 greenwaste collections and one junk collection from the verge of every residential property in the municipality. There is one collection of combined greenwaste and junk each year for rural properties.

The district is split into 5 residential areas and one rural area. In the residential areas greenwaste is collected in March, June and November and the junk collection is in August/September.

Tenders were called to provide the service for the next 3 years.

Submission
Tender No. 23/2006 closed on 31 August 2006. The award of this tender has been delayed due to ongoing discussions with the SMRC and City of Melville. All three contractors have confirmed that their submissions are still valid.

Three compliant submissions were received from the following:

• Kwinana Recycle Service (KRS)
• D & M Waste Service
• Cleanaway

Report

Evaluation

The following evaluation criteria was advertised and forms the basis of the assessment of each bid submitted:

Price 60%
Experience 10%
Key personnel 10%
Resources 20%

Using the above criteria, the evaluation of each bid has been determined as follows:

Kwinana Recycling Service

KRS are a family owned and operated business.  They have been in the recycling and waste industry for 15 years and have serviced the City’s bulk verge collection requirements for the last 4 years.

KRS have experienced staff that have been with them for 8 years and the current supervisor is a Director of the company.  Council officers have maintained positive working relationships with KRS throughout the period of the contract.  There have however been some minor problems with ongoing communication which need to be addressed.  KRS have eight rear load trucks (2 new) and four loaders and are well resourced to service the City’s contract

D&M Waste Services

D&M Waste Services are a professional group who have had years of experience in the delivery of bulk verge collection services.  They have provided similar services to 8 other local government authorities within the last 5 years and are currently providing bulk verge collection to the SMRC member Councils.

D&M Waste Services have a full team of experienced operators and collectors.  They are well established and resourced to undertake the work however they have a large number of local authority contracts which clash with our collection times.

Cleanaway

Cleanaway has been the contract manager or facilitator of bulk verge collection contracts for four other local government authorities however have largely used sub contractors in the delivery of that service (eg. D&M Waste Services).  They propose to complete this contract using their own resources.

Cleanaway as an organisation has provided many years of municipal service and have experience in administering contacts of this nature.  No detail however has been provided on the experience of staff that will actually be undertaking the work.  They propose to service the contract with 2 rear load trucks and 2 front-end loaders.

Cleanaway is a large company and have sufficient resources at its disposal to support the contract and complete the works as requested.  The evaluation however reflects the lack of operational staff with experience in actually completing the works.

Alternative Bids

D&M Waste Services provided 2 alternative bids for Councils consideration.  These bids have been evaluated and are included in the attachment.

Alternative 1 provides a range of costs per tonne.  Thus once the tonnages exceed the threshold to cover the direct costs of providing the service, the price is reduced and the City receives the benefit.

Alternative 2 extrapolates the collection costs to a rate per rateable property.  Collecting under this scheme makes it less beneficial to the Contractor to collect all of the material on the verge.  Whilst it is important to have clear processes in place to control the amount of waste being disposed, we are providing a customer service and our contract needs to encourage bulk waste to be collected.

Options

The City has a number of options to deliver its bulk verge collection as follows:

1. Award the contract to KRS in accordance with the evaluation completed.
2. Participate with other member Councils of the SMRC in their Bulk Verge Collection Contract.
3. Reject all tenders and complete the works with day labour.

Option 1 – Award to KRS

Evaluation of the three conforming and 2 alternative submissions received has been completed and KRS represents the best value to Council.  They have proven experience in delivering the City’s bulk verge collection and a 3 year contract term would maintain flexibility for the City as it continues to redevelop the Henderson Resource Recovery Park (HRRP).

Option 2 – Participate in the SMRC Bulk Verge Collection Contract

Council has an opportunity to participate with 4 other Member Councils in an SMRC administered Regional Bulk Verge Collection Contract.  On the 23^rd November the SMRC board authorized the calling of tenders for regional verge collection and are hoping to award the contract in January or February 2007.

The premise of a regional contract is to save money through bulk purchasing of the service.  The City however found that it received a more economical rate with its individual contract some 4 years ago.  Costs submitted for this tender are economical and officers do not see any significant advantage in participating with the SMRC for bulk verge collection at this point in time.  Their may be some merit in delaying our decision until after the SMRC tenders have been called and closed however that would mean that the City would not have a contract in place for the green waste collection commencing in February.  Officers would also like to pursue alternative means of collection to improve our ability to recover the resource and that would not be possible under the SMRC tender.