COM 0041.001 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PROTEST DENIAL: Request Formal Contested Case Hearing page 3 costs will not have a considerable be riag on the selection of a contractor. The merits of recycling are based on the diversion it ctrztes which saves the County landfill disposal costs. By not competitively controlling the costs of diversion, the County may be creating costs which are actually greater than the costs it wishes to avoid. "The goals and objectives" section of Contract 96112 cleazly states that the contractor hones to achieve 25% glass diversion by the end of the second yeaz. If this goal is achieved, the County will save $119,451.00 for the initial two years. Unfortunately, the cost of the contracted program will be $432,000.00 for that same period. The fact that this can happen is the result of how the RFP process, and County's unwillingness to make all facts known, can work against the best interests of the County. IV. Restriction of Fairness 1. Fairness Issues A. By executing contract No. 96112, the County puts all other entities at a severe disadvantage for all present and future glass recycling service opportunities, which could be put out for competitive bid by the County of Hawaii. Contract No. 96112 provides for one business entity to be the sole beneficiary of critical glass recycling equipment paid for with County funds received through the State of Hawaii. It also creates for the County a vested interest in the contractor because the contractor is in possession of Cottnty paid for equipment that the Count}• needs to ensure it has a fair amount of services received from the contractor in return. 2. No Incentive A. Contract No. 96112 creates no incentive for performance. In the first year the contractor receives $216,000.00 worth of benefits and the County is guaranteed nothing in return. The contract only gives extrapolated data and a vague list of goals they h~ to achieve. [n the meantime they aze receiving in full the first year all monies set aside for glass recycling at the exclusion of all other efforts that could be undertaken. There is no incentive for the general public to take part in any of the programs by setting up a comprehensive buy-back probKam which is the central part of all recycling programs. These facts aze clearly not in the interest of the County or the community. 3. Selective Input A. By not clarifying the RFP with specific requests for input on establishing a County based glass recycling program, the County eliminated all other available input on establishing a comprehensive recycling prol,~ram that would maximize diversion. 4. Circumventing IFB A. it is clear from the time line created by RFP 1533 and Contract 961 12 and the language contained in both RFP and the negotiated a~~reement for services behveen the State of Hawaii and the County of Hawaii that RFP 1533 was exclusively used by both the State and the Count}' in establishing the scope of services for the State contract. The contract between the State and County was executed on 9-1-95. The County then subcontracted on I 1-3-95 with Recycling