Outline – Proactive Replacement Program Background What (is proactive replacement)? Why (proactive replacement)? When (to implement proactive replacement)? Issues/Benefits with Proactive Replacement Case Study – City of Los Angeles RFP vs. Bid Cart Specifications
Background - Carts Roll-out Carts introduced in 1969 Variety of Programs across the country Maturity of Cart Programs Life of Carts - Conditions which affect cart life Decision point for every City (County)
What (is proactive replacement)? Systematically replacing roll-out carts throughout City (or area) based on age and condition of carts, as opposed to sporadic daily replacement from residents requests Proactive replacement based on analysis of existing condition of carts in conjunction with previous program rollout Other Causes of failure?
Why (proactive replacement)? Threshold of catastrophic failure Choose threshold to determine break even cost analysis. Typically 4% - 5% annual failure Cost of staff: drivers, phone operators Cost of equipment: trucks, carts, parts Distinguish between types of failure: age of carts, trucks, unusual circumstances, etc. Detriment to Service – Should the burden of repair be placed on the resident? Residents not sure whether they should call – will they be charged?
Why (proactive replacement)? Consistency of Carts: Efficiencies, Aesthetics Better presence within the City Ideal time to make other changes to the program, re-educate Safety – residents and drivers
When (implement proactive replacement)? Break even cost analysis – money talks Before a change of staff of drivers and operators to handle daily requests Typically 10 – 15 years after initial cart implementation Allow time for RFP/Bid, coordinating distribution and retrieval, and citywide announcements
Issues with Proactive Replacement Up Front Cost – Large capital outlay, although it can be phased in Assembly and Distribution – Added task of picking up old containers - personnel Cart for Cart – Resident receives new cart when old cart is turned in Handling old carts (large scale) – Recycled material, disassembly, washing, grinding, etc. New Cart Fever – Once residents know about new carts, will call for replacement of their damaged cart
Benefits of Proactive Replacement Overall Cost Savings – Replacement efficiency Personnel allocation Re-educate the residents Consistent Carts and components Implement new technology – CCIS – asset allocation/database of service calls – GIS – pinpoint problem areas Audit the City – Much easier during replacement program – determine non-paying residents Make other changes to system
Case Study: City of L.A. Background # of Households: 720,000 Area: 447 square miles Residential Collection Trucks: 650 # of Roll-out Carts: 2.1 million units, 6 manufacturers, 3 cart system – Refuse, Recycling, Yard Waste Diversion: 45% Once per week Collection
Case Study: City of L.A. (cont) Cart Implementation: 1991, 1994, 1997 Cart Failures – graph
Case Study: City of L.A. (cont) Failure exceeded threshold of 5% Proactive Replacement Program – Phase in new carts by district (6) – replace oldest carts first – 10 to 12 year cycle One Cart Supplier Matching Compatibility of Trucks with Carts Implement CCIS – Bar codes, asset tracking, account tracking, information to improve system Setup separate facility to assemble, distribute, return old carts, clean, grind
Case Study: City of L.A. (cont) Inherently conducting audit during distribution and retrieval of carts Change size of yard waste carts RFQ and Bid: Competitive price for long term contract
RFP vs. Bid Every City different – bylaws, charter, rules City Perspective: Bid: Detail specifications, lowest responsive bidder RFP: Program outline, point system, allows options and creativity If City knows desired specifications and looking for lowest price to meet those specifications, bid is the most effective option If City is open to different types of options and wants to evaluate bids on several criteria, RFP is best option
RFP vs. Bid RFP allows flexibility in choosing the vendor that provides the most value RFP allows City to prioritize or weight parameters RFP: Do not allow price negotiations Vendors perspective – depends on business model and approach as cart manufacturer Vendors that offer value package prefer RFP Vendors with lowest manufacturing costs and limited overhead prefer bids RFQ
Cart Specifications Three Ingredients: Design, Processing, Material Design: Product features – compatibility, safety, user-friendly, aesthetics Processing: Not only type but equipment technology, processing expertise Material: Correct material for process and application, Consistency, Additives Integrity of Cart vendor vs. Integrity of Cart
Cart Specifications (cont) Suggestions Understand what is needed/desired in design, processing, and material of cart Use references (not just supplied by vendor) – understand warranty (procedure), failures, service, lead times, etc. Parameters of vendor: financial stability, capacity, lawsuits, etc. Identify and contact resin and additives suppliers Testing: applicable to your City Truck Compatibility If RFP – weight each category