Laserfiche WebLink
- DEM has implemented detailed verification procedures based on the audit <br />recommendations. DEM welcomes discussions with the Legislative <br />Auditor to explore options for improved processes. <br />10. Why not have only one contract for both hauling and diversion? <br />- No specific answer. DEM is reviewing this option. <br />MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS: <br />a) There are costs involved with trying to meet the goals established by <br />previous Council resolutions, by the Zero Waste resolution and by <br />the IRSWMP. <br />b) We must recognize that it costs money to maintain a recycling <br />program for the County. <br />c) The so- called `experience' factor should not be the reason to limit the <br />RFP regardless of the administrative and verification advantages. <br />County normally has experience as criteria for bids to assure that <br />bidders are capable of performing the services. <br />d) Some analysis should be made to determine whether a `one size fits <br />all' is the best possible solution regardless of vendor `experience'. <br />The current system may be better for rural areas of the County, but <br />in the urban parts of the island perhaps PAYT or curb -side pick up <br />might be a more effective alternative. The analysis was done as part of <br />the IRSWMP Plan Update in 2009 where the 2 -Bin program was <br />included in the recommendations. DEM believes it is important for <br />education and communication that the DEM provides consistent services <br />at all the transfer stations and provides the same conveniences for all <br />residents in our County. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />a) No price should be indicated in the RFP, particularly since there are <br />so few bidders in the process. DEM strongly agrees for reasons stated <br />above in response to question No. 3. <br />5 <br />