HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0391.006 2004-2006 ,~~:cl ~Q ~o,_:: ; u~1``7
x` ~ -
Og •H~~A
a0.m~~9
i ji t_~ 7Z jC_.
n,
f
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 23, 2005 -
TO: I3ob Jacobson, Chairman
Committee on F:nvixonmental Mana ~ ent
FROM: James Y. ~lrakaki, Council Memb~
Hawaii County Council
.
RE: RFP Solid Waste Technology
I will not be filling out your polling sheet because I believe I need to be more specific on
how T feel about the apptoach to the RFP process.
1. My goal is to promote zero landfilling and zero trucking to either side of the island. I see
a 20 year goal as Zero landfilling of untreated MSW; 15 year goal of no mole than 10%
of processed MSW into the landfill; 10 year goal of no more than 20% of processed
MSW into a landfill; 5 year goal of no more than 25% of processed MSW irsto a landfill;
2 year goal of a large scale waste reduction system in operation.
2. The waste technology chosen in the RFP must give:
A. Assurance that it can wank.
B. Insurance that in case the system does not work, the county receives enough
money to resolve the MSW problem.
C. Meet the cost per ton test.
3. All technologies and approaches should be allowed to bid under the RFP prrocess. The
a~iteria of the selection should be: assurance, insurance and cost per ton to ahe county.
4. We should not require non-feasible technologies to be identified because we may have to
think outside of the bos. We should not exclude any technology because oti prejudice by
a certain segment of society. T et the good rise to the top and the inferior drop to the
bottom. The criteria should be assurance, insurance, and cost pet ton. Comm. No. 391 •~Q
Ref. To; i~e~ E ~j
~
Ref. Uate SFP 2 0 2005
Bob Jacobson
Page 2 oft
August 23, 2005
5. We should nat identify preferred and not preferred technologies. Why do we always
attempt to pre-select bidders when we should want to see what is in the marketplace?
'I'hr• gitr rniilil }is• im rnnnfi~ landg nr np hnpgtr la ride ac [}ir hi(l.l F•rc rnnir_ '_i^ qn t}i r}irir
r _
proposal. ~we should nor be pre-selecting the site.
7. We should strive for private ownership with private Financing however the bidders
should come up with their proposal using whatever combination they choose.
Operating terms should be left to the bidders. We should not insist that we own the
system after the contract tertn because we may be left with obsolete equipment and
technology. The bidder could include it in the RFP process.
8. We should use the RFP process and issue a firm contract to the winner of the process.
We should not use Cechnicalities to reject bidders. We should then ask for the best and
final offer should the bids fox the 1ZFP come close to each other.
9. The main issue in the RFP process should be: assurance that it works; insurance in case
something goes wrong; how much will it cost the county.
10. The technology should be able to process the East Hawaii MSW and perhaps expand to
include the West Hawaii MSW without hauling across the island.
[n summary, we should not be steering the RFP because of our personal agenda and
prejudices. This should be an open process inviting any and all technologies.
JYA/mmc
xc. Stacy K. Higa, Chaupcrson
Virginia Isbell, Vice-Chairperson
Dr. Fred Holschuh, Council Member
Donald Ikeda, Council Member
Gary Safarik, Council Member
K. Angel Pilag~o, Coundl Member
Pete Hoffmann, Councll Member
Harry ICim, Mayor
Barbara Aell, Environmental Management llirector
Bill Takaba, Finance Director