Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0582.008 2004-2006 M~v,or M Harry Kim ~',c~ ' William Takaba Mayor Director • Nancy E. Crawford •i'•., Deputy Director ~~oi.M•~ County of Hawaii Finance Department 25 Aupuni Sheet, Room t I8 • Hilq Hawaii 96720 (808)961-8234 Fax (808)961-8248 February 8, 2006 Stacy Higa, Chairman, and Members of the Hawaii County Council Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Subject: Solid Waste Reduction Facility RFP Addendum Number 1 Enclosed, please find a copy of Addendum Number 1 of the Request for Stage 1 Proposals (RFP No. 2210). Addendum Number 1 addresses official questions, concerns, and requests that have been received since RFP No. 2210 was issued on December 28, 2005. Major changes to RFP No. 2210: Extended the Stage 1 Proposal submittal date to March 20, 2006 • Extended the deadline for written questions to February 20, 2006 • Removed the prohibition of participating proposers from contacting elected officials • Revised and clarified the section relating to contact with regulators This addendum is available on the County of Hawaii website. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at your convenience. William Takaba Director cc: Harry Kim Barbara Bell Enclosure Comm. No. S ~ 2 Ref. To: ' NlC Ref. Uate COUNTY OF HAWAII, HAWAII REQUEST FOR STAGE 1 PROPOSALS WASTE REDUCTION FACILITY DESIGN-BUILD-OPERATE PROJECT RFP N0.2210 ADDENDUM NUMBERI FEBRUARY 6, 2006 TO: RECIPIENTS OF THE REQUEST FOR STAGE 1 PROPOSALS FROM: COUNTY OF HAWAII, HAWAII; DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE SUBJECT: ADDENDUM NUMBER 1 This Addendum Number 1 shall be part of the Request for Stage 1 Proposals Waste Reduction Facility Design-Build-Operate Project (RFP No. 2210) issued by the County of Hawaii, Hawaii on December 28, 2005 (the "Stage 1 RFP"). Pursuant to Sections 3-122-16.05 and -16.06 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules, Addendum Number 1 sets forth amendments to the Stage 1 RFP, clarifications (including pre-proposal conference communications) and a summary of the pre- proposalconference. The County has decided to make the Stage 1 RFP and this Addendum No.l available on its website (in PDF format): http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/purchasing/bids.htm. In addition, Attachment D to the Stage 1 RFP (Proposal Forms) may be downloaded in Word format for use by potential proposers. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM NO. 1: To be considered responsive, Stage 1 RFP Respondents shall acknowledge receipt of this Addendum No. 1 in the space provided on Stage 1 Proposal Submittal Form 1. SECTION L AMENDMENTS Section 1.1: Section 4.2 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE, Section 5.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS and Section 5.2 STAGE 1PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND SITE TOUR The County has determined to extend the "Stage 1 Proposal Submittal Date" and the "Written Questions Submittal Date" in response to a potential proposer's request for an extension and to allow all potential proposers more time to prepaze quality proposals in response to this Request for Stage 1 Proposals. Therefore, with respect to the Stage 1 Proposal Submittal Date and the Written Questions Submittal Date, the anticipated schedule on page 18 of the Stage 1 RFP shall be revised as follows: 1 492035.3 028493 AMD 1. Replace "Deadline for Written Questions" and "Stage 1 Proposal Submittal Date" with the following: Date Activity February 20, 2006 Deadline for Written Questions Mazch 20, 2006 Stage 1 Proposal Submittal Date In the first sentence on page 23, Section 5.1 of the Stage 1 RFP, replace "February 17, 2006" with "Mazch 20, 2006". In the last sentence on page 24, Section 5.2 of the Stage 1 RFP, replace "January 27, 2006" with "Februazy 20, 2006". The effect, if any, of this extension on the overall Project schedule shall be reflected in the revised anticipated schedule to be set forth in the Stage 2 RFP. Section 1.2: Attachment C Communication Protocol -CONTACT WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS and Section 4.3.3 COMPETITION/COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOL The County has determined to replace the provision of the Communications Protocol which prohibits participating proposers from contacting the County's elected officials. Therefore, the paragraph on "No contact with elected officials" on page 1 of Attachment C shall be revised as follows: 1. Delete paragraph "1. No Contact with Elected Officials" in its entirety. 2. Replace with the following: "1. Participating Proposers. The County requests that participating proposers direct any and all inquires related to this Project, including inquiries to the County's elected officials or representatives of their offices, to the County's Contact Person (Bill Takaba). Participating proposers can only rely upon written addendum issued by the County in response to such inquires." The third sentence of Section 4.3.3 of the Stage 1 RFP (page 20) shall be deleted. Section 1.3: Attachment C Communication Protocol -CONTACT WITH REGULATORS The County has determined to revise the provision of the Communications Protocol which prohibits participating proposers from contacting the regulators responsible for issuing permits. Therefore, the paragraph on "Contact with Regulators" on page 1 of Attachment C shall be revised as follows: 1. Delete paragraph "4. Contact with Regulators" in its entirety. 2. Replace with the following: "4. Contact with Regulators. The participating proposers may contact regulators responsible for issuing permits with respect to whether their proposed design/technology can be permitted or not under applicable law. The County 2 492035.3 028493 AMD anticipates that this protocol will be modified for the Stage 2 RFP process to allow more detailed discussions with regulators. The County expects that the Stage 2 RFP will set forth the procedure to be followed for meeting with and obtaining information from regulatory agencies." SECTION 2. CLARIFICATIONS Section 2.1: Attachment B -Preliminary Risk Matrix (Pages 2-3) -ASSUMPTION OF PRE- EXISTING CONDITIONS RISK Clarification reeazding Pre-Existing Conditions Risk: The County is familiaz with the expected conditions of the site and does not intend on paying a premium for placing sigdificant risks associated with the pre-existing site conditions on the Company. The County will perform a level 1 hazazdous materials site assessment and identify known azeas of contamination and may also perform some geotechnical investigations of the site. Subsequently, information from the County (i.e., level 1 assessment and geotechnical investigations) will be disclosed to the Stage 2 proposers (e.g., short-listed firms). Stage 2 proposers shall take such disclosures into consideration and may conduct their own investigations to support development of their Stage 2 proposals. Site access will be granted to short-listed firms during the Stage 2 RFP process. Conditions identified or reasonably anticipated based on County disclosures or Company investigations during development of its Stage 2 proposal are deemed to be Company risk. However, if conditions are found subsequent to contract execution that were not identified nor reasonably anticipated based on County disclosures or Company investigations and the Company is adversely affected .thereby, such conditions aze deemed to be County risk. Section 2.2: Section 3.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS and Attachment B - Preliminary Contract Principles (Page 1) - GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS Clarification re¢azdinQ Time to Obtain Required Permits: The intent of the County is to avoid burdening the Company with permitting delays unless they result from the Company's action (i.e., poor quality permit application submittals) or inaction (i.e., failure to submit permit applications or respond to permitting agency requests in a timely manner). The County anticipates that short-listed firns will be expected to commit to a maximum time for meeting their Development Period responsibilities, including securing certain permits and govemmental approvals. The County expects, however, that the DBO Contract will provide certain relief in the event of uncontrollable circumstances (i.e., failure to obtain a required permit not due to Company action or inaction). Section 2.3: Section 3.1.5 PROJECT OWNERSHIP/FINANCING and Attachment B - Preliminary Contract Principles (Page 1) -COUNTY FINANCING Clarification reeazdina Proiect Financing and Risk Sharing: If the Selected Proposer is able to adequately demonstrate the effectiveness and long-term technical and financial viability 3 492035.3 028493 AMD of the proposed designltechnology, the County will finance and own the Project. If, in the opinion of the County, the design/technical approach proposed meets the minimum requirements set forth in the Stage 1 RFP but the County is not comfortable financing the Project, private financing by the Selected Proposer maybe required. The County intends to set forth its position on the Project financing approach in the Stage 2 RFP based on its review of the short-listed companies' respective proposed design/technologies. Section 2.4: Section 5.4 MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE QUALIFICATIONS Clarification resazdina Minimum Acceptable Qualifications: The Stage 1 RFP requires two- years of experience in operating at least one facility processing a similar waste stream and of similaz technology, capacity and complexity as that which will be proposed For this Project. This minimum acceptable qualification is not limited to a proposer's United States facilities. Proposers, however, must provide sufficient information on the facility in order to demonstrate that such facility is similaz in technology, capacity and complexity, including the waste stream. Section 2.5: Section 2.1.2 EXPECTED CAPACITY OF WASTE REDUCTION FACILITY Clarification regazding Expected Capacity of Waste Reduction Facility: For purpose of preparing the Stage 1 RFP, the County estimated the anticipated capacity of Waste Reduction Facility to be in a range of 200 - 300 tpd. Upon issuance of the Stage 2 RFP, the County will provide a more definitive capacity for the Waste Reduction Facility. The County recognizes that the capacity of certain technologies may be modular and may not match the County's current capacity estimate of 250 tpd 50 tpd). At this time (prior to seeing the Stage 1 Proposals) the County does not wish to eliminate technologies merely because they are only available in modulaz sizes that do not add up to 250 tpd 50 tpd). Proposers should provide as much information as possible in their Stage 1 Proposals regarding capacity limitations and modulaz sizes of their technology. SECTION 3. SUMMARY OF THE PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE Bill Takaba (County's Contact Person) introduced the pre-proposal conference of January 18, 2006, then provided background information on the County's objectives for the Waste Reduction Facility procurement, the importance of the facility to the County's future solid waste system, and actions taken by the County Council to authorize this procurement. The County's consultant (R.W. Beck) briefly summarized various sections of the Stage 1 RFP. This was followed by questions and discussion. Questions asked during the pre-proposal conference and written responses to those questions are provided in Section 4 of this Addendum No. 1. 4 492035.3 028493 AMD SECTION 4. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS The County received a number of written questions regarding the Stage 1 RFP from several potential proposers between December 28, 2005 and January 27, 2006. This section sets forth written questions submitted to the County during this comment period and written responses to those questions. In addition, this section includes questions asked during the pre-proposal conference and written responses to those questions. uestion 1: Does the County Administration have the Council and the public backing to move this RFP forward? Response: Yes. Issuance of the Stage 1 RFP, which embodies principles approved by the Council at the October 17, 2005 Environmental Committee Meeting, demonstrates the Council's will to implement a waste reduction facility technology project in accordance with the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. uestion 2: What options aze available to the successful contractor to connect to electricity, water and sewage? Response: Based on current expectations, the status of utilities that will be connected to the proposed Sort Station (which is anticipated to be adjacent to the Waste Reduction Facility) is set forth below: • Electricity: Electric utility service will not be provided to the proposed Sort Station or Reload Building. Electricity requirements at the Waste Reduction Facility could be met by any or all of the following: 1) extending the 15 kV Class electrical service approximately 700-800 feet from where it currently terminates at the base yazd; 2) additional generator capacity; and/or 3) electricity generated as part of the Waste Reduction Facility operations. • Water: Current plans aze for water service to be provided to the proposed Sort Station and Reload Building via a 12-inch water line. If additional supply is required for the Waste Reduction Facility, it would have to be included in proposer's Stage 2 Proposal. • Sewer: No sewer line will be extended to the proposed Sort Station and Reload Building. Waste Reduction Facility sanitary requirements could be met by septic systems or by bringing in a sewer line (the closest line is located along Airport Road). Proposers should note that the scope and status of the County's proposed Sort Station, including the Reload Building, is being revised. The Stage 2 RFP will describe available utility service in more detail, including any specific assumptions regazding utilities on which proposers will be asked to base their Stage 2 Proposals. Ouestiou 3: Does the EIS require the successful bidder to hold public hearing meetings? 5 492035.3 028493 AMD Response: The EIS process anticipated to be conducted for the Waste Reduction Facility will include public meetings. These meeting will be held by the County; however, the Selected Proposer will be expected to participate. uestion 4: Can topographic maps be provided for the proposed Sort azea? Response: These plans can be obtained from the County by contacting Dora Beck, Technical Services Sec[ion Chief, for $300 (refundable; provided that they aze returned in good condition). Proposers are cautioned, however, that these plans aze being modified. uestion 5: Can the preliminary plans for the sorting facility be provided? Response: See Question 4. uestion 6: What tipping fee will the County pay to dispose of its waste? Response: The County plans to provide the financing for the facility. Accordingly, under the public financing/ownership model, the County does not expect to pay any tipping fees to the Company but expects to pay the Company the fixed design build price and the annual service fee in accordance with sections 9 and 18 of the Preliminary Contract Principles and section 3.2 of the Stage 1 RFP. The County expects to make a final decision about whether or not private financing will be requested prior to issuing the Stage 2 RFP. This decision will be based, in part, on the types of firms and technologies that aze short-listed at the end of the Stage 1 Proposal evaluation process. Additional details will be set forth in the Stage 2 RFP. uestion 7: What price will be paid for the electricity placed on the local grid? Response: If the selected waste reduction technology results in the sale of electricity, it is anticipated that the County would sell electricity generated at the facility to a local utility Company at a price equal to or greater than the utility Company's "avoided costs" in accordance with Chapter 6-74 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules. Additional details will be provided in the Stage 2 RFP. Question 8: Will the County enter into a "put-or-pay" contract for 20 years, i.e., the agreement on the tipping fee and the number of tons of garbage to be delivered daily? Response: The County plans to provide the financing for the facility. Under the public financing/ownership model, during the operating period, the County will pay the Company the annual service fee in accordance with section 18 of the Preliminary Contract Principles and section 3.2 of the Stage 1 RFP. The fixed component of the annual service fee will be based on the requirements of the Company to process a specified number of tons (to be set 6 492035.3 026493 AMD forth in the Stage 2 RFP) of Acceptable Waste per each contract yeaz. The fixed component of the annual service fee will be paid to the Company even if the amount of tonnage delivered for processing is below the specified number of tons on which the fixed component is to be based. The annual service fee will also include an excess processing component which will compensate the Company for costs relating to the processing of Acceptable Waste above the stated level of service on which the fixed component is to be based. Additional details will be set forth in the Stage 2 RFP. uestion 9: Wil] the local utility enter into a 20 year power sales agreement? Response: The term of a power sales agreement between the County and the local utility will be negotiated in accordance with Chapter 6-74 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules. The length of the power sales agreement is yet to be determined but additional details will be set forth in the Stage 2 RFP. Question 10: The waste chazacterization in the Stage 1 RFP does not include the water content of the organic fraction. Water content is important since it reduces the % of organic materials available to produce energy. A participating proposer's process recovers this water, purifies it, and uses it for make up water in the steam boiler and cooling tower. It is typically assumed to be 25% on the mainland. Are there drastic seasonal changes in the water content? A participating proposer's destructive distillation process is a closed system in which any organic material, hazardous or not, is safely disposed. All municipal solid waste contains hazazdous material components and any thermal transformation process should be capable of processing them safely. Resnonse: There is currently no data on the moisture content of the waste in the County. Given climate conditions in eastern portion of the County, however, the moisture content of the waste diverted to the Waste Reduction Facility may be higher than 25%, depending, in part, on the amount of "green waste" actually delivered to the Waste Reduction Facility. Additional information on waste moisture content will be provided in the Stage 2 RFP. Question 11: What is the % of organics in the construction and demo waste, special waste, mixed waste,and household hazardous waste? Response: Proposers should review Table 2-2 of Appendix C to the County's Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the best available information on the percent organics in these materials. Data on the percent organics in "mixed waste" is not available. Proposers should also note that the County intends to divert household hazardous waste and special waste (such as bulky items and sludge) upstream or at the Reload Building tipping floor. puestion 12: Should a participating proposer assume that the capacity of the desired facility is 250 tpd? A participating proposer's waste-to-energy ("WTE") system is modulaz in design and capacities can be increased in 100 tpd increments. A participating proposer's WTE process is not 7 492035.3 028493 AMD mass burn or incineration. If the County envisions a large capacity increase in the future (for example, closing all landfills), increasing the size of the facility footprint initially will not add to the cost significantly. Adding additional components in the future would then be economic. Response: See Clarification Section 2.5. Question 13: The Stage 1 RFP states specifically that no audio visual materials will be accepted. A participating proposer does not have a current commercial operating facility. However, a video tape of its demonstration facility which operated for almost 30 years, and a 2 yeaz demonstration test of a commercial facility sponsored by the DOE, is believed to be essential to validating the technology. Will you accept this videotape? Response: Participating proposers must submit written responses (non-audio visual materials) in demonstrating their ability to meet the minimum acceptable qualifications set forth in the Stage 1 RFP. Ouestion 14: Attachment B says you are going to be performing an environmental site assessment at the site and you're going to share that information with the Stage 2 proposers. It also says on the risk sharing that if contamination is found, you're expecting the Stage 2 proposers to take responsibility for whatever is revealed in that assessment. I don't see how that's going to work. You're asking us to take risks when we haven't seen the site? Response: See Clarification Section 2.1. Ouestion 15: Would like a clarification on the two-yeaz track record for operating similaz facilities. Is it limited to facilities in the United States? Response: See Clarification Section 2.4. Ouestion 16: You're looking at aCounty-financed project, an EPC operation contract, for proven technologies but if something comes in that is not proven or doesn't quite fit the risk profile the County wants, it would accept independently financed projects. How does that work? Response: See Clarification Section 2.3. Question 17: You're asking proposers to take responsibility for the permitting and the permitting would be done during the development period. At the end of acceptance, if you miss the schedule you have to liquidate the damages. We don't have the guazantees of when the permits aze going to come up and be issued. That scheduling is going to be very difficult to take liquidated damages. I would suggest that the clock shouldn't start ticking until the obligations of the development period aze satisfied. Basically we don't have a lot of control over the issuance of the permits from the government. 8 492035.3 028493 AMD Response: See Clarification Section 2.2. Ouestion 18: Would you clarify - there's a section here where it says they don't want their people on a list to be talking to state agencies who issue permits. What was the intent of that? Response: See Amendment Section 1.3. Question 19: A question was asked regazding two presentations that were made to the County Environmental Committee. Response: These presentations were held as part of a public County Environmental Committee meeting. If Hawaii Waste Systems and Pacific Waste aze interested in this procurement, they have to respond in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Stage 1 RFP. Since these presentations were part of a public County Environmental Committee meeting, any participating proposer may contact the County for more information on the content of these presentations. Ouestion 20: Can we have copies of the sign-in sheet before we depart this evening? Response: See Attachment 1. Ouestion 21: How did the list of companies identified in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan come together? Response: This is a list of vendors that were known to the County in late 2002 and was not meant to be an exhaustive nor final list of waste reduction technologies or companies. In accordance with the procedures set forth in the Stage 1 RFP, all Stage 1 proposals submitted to the County by Mazch 20, 2006 will be reviewed by the Evaluation Committee. Ouestion 22: What if you don't get four qualified companies for this Stage 1? What if you only get two? But just one or two meeting all this criteria and still expressing interest would be a problem? Response: )n accordance with Section 3-122-59 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules, the County has several options available to them in case of receiving only one acceptable proposal or if there aze no responsible proposers submitting acceptable proposals. The County is optimistic that it will receive multiple acceptable proposals. If such event presents itself, the Evaluation Committee would review all alternatives and make a decision as to the next steps. Ouestion 23: Can you provide any further information now as to how the proposed payments relate to tipping fees or how the byproduct revenue might be split? If the Waste Reduction Facility 9 492035.3 028493 AMD is privately financed and owned, will the County propose the same kind of split on the fees and revenues? Response: The County plans to provide the financing for the facility. Under the public financing/ownership model, the County does not expect to pay any tipping fees to the Company but expects to pay the Company the fixed design build price and the annual service fee in accordance with sections 9 and 18 of the Preliminary Contract Principles and section 3.2 of the Stage 1 RFP. The annual service fee will include a revenue sharing component (i.e., byproduct revenue). Under a private financing model, the payment and revenue sharing could be different. Additional information will be set forth in the Stage 2 RFP. Ouestiou 24: Several potential proposers inquired as to whether their patented technologies would be allowed to participate in the Stage 1 RFP. Resvonse: The Stage 1 RFP sets forth two acceptable technologies -waste-to-energy (mass bum and RDF) and thermal gasification. If the potential proposer's proposed design technology meets the minimum acceptable qualifications set forth in the Stage 1 RFP, such design/technology would be considered and evaluated by the Evaluation Committee. Ouestion 25: Potential proposers asked whether they could respond to RFP No. 2210 with a proposal only for an "interim solution" or with a proposal that includes more than simply a waste reduction facility. Resvonse: The County will not accept proposals that are only for interim solutions. Proposers should review Section 5.4, Appendix D (pages 33 - 34) of the Stage 1 RFP which asks for Stage 1 Proposers to indicate their interest in providing interim waste disposal or management services. These services would be in addition to providing the anticipated scope of work for the Waste Reduction Facility set forth in Section 2.3 of the Stage 1 RFP. If proposers desire to provide such services, such information should be provided in response to the requirements of Section 5.4, Appendix D, in sufficient detail to allow the County to determine whether to include interim waste disposal or management services in the Stage 2 RFP. The County will make a final determination as to whether or not to include such additional scope of services in the Stage 2 RFP based, in part, on vendor responses to this question in their Stage 1 Proposals. 10 492035.3 028493 AMD . M ~ y N ~ o- ' ~ ~ W H ° Z N ~ N ~ ~ ~ M 1 ~ s ~ d' ~ .9 ~ M n ~o ~1f a ~ a0 ~ M p C'O app0 ~ y 'O ,J~ O ono ~ ~ W ~ pJ ~ tl. VgsJ ~ ~ ~ t y W ~ tli ~ ~ ~ a J ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~v W s ~f. / \ z ~ o d N~ W ~ o a ~ a v~ H a ~ W IA E = ~ _ V O d s~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ o ~ ~ 7q W W E ~ ~ ~ 1\I ~ ~ d ~ G~ F FFY~~ ~a g y ~ ~ ~ ~ "3 N S a~ O~ ~ J 3 J ~ ~ U ~ y W~ 4, ~ ~ W a o N C `W d V E ' ' m " J ~ _ i q ~ ~ y d .a.. ` ~ ~ ~ ~ T w ~ ° ~.v ~ ~ v ~ J ~ a r Z T Q ~ c 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~