Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0563.000 1996-1998 Coalition of Concerned Recyciers Mike Allen, Mike DuBois, Rick Walton, Mike Christenson P.O. Box 5294, Hllo, H18ti720 Phone ~ F: (808) 935-9328 Dominic Yagong Chair, Public Works Department Hawaii County Council ` M 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, HI 96720 October 16, 199~'~ - , Dear Mc Yagong: - The Coalition of Concerned Recyclers requests an complete adult of the two year old- glass diversion recycling program. The following is a brief summary of the events and reasons that have led up to our request. - Ti ine October -December 1994 State planned to start collecting the glass bottle tax between these dates and give the money to the County of Hawaii on January 1995. However, the State did not collect the tax at this time.The State waited tiI September 1995 to award monies to the County. January 1993 County of Hawaii RFP 1533 submittal date. The County of Hawaii did not specifically make the State glass funding known to the public in RFP 1533. September 1995 State of Hawaii contracts with County of Hawaii for $216,000 specifically for a Glass Recycing Program- November 1995 County of Hawaii subcontracts with Recycling Systems, Inc. without proper procedure. Mayor Yamashiro stated, "I do not know anything about a glass recycling program". On November 16th Environmental Recycling protested County of Hawaii Contract 96112 that evolved out of RFP 1533. December 1993 Environmental Recycling requested a formal contested case hearing with the State Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA). January 1996 The DCCA determined that Environmental Recycling was one day late in filing with the DCCA, therefore the Environmental Recycling protest case was never heard. February 1996 Yamashiro stated at Kona recyGers meeting, "I never read Contract 96112 when I signed it. 1 left the details up to Donna Kiyosaki." January 1997 Environmental Recycling requests Public Works Department audit first year glass recycling program. March 1997 Public Works Department denied Environmental Recycling audit request. September 1997 Environmental Recycling again requests audit of the glass recycling program. coop. 563 inb 1t®. R E F it~f. 'PNIPL NOV 0 3 1997 Recyclers request Audit Page 2 The County of Hawaii, through the Public Works Department, funded by the State of Hawaii, set up a Glass Recycling Diversion program which has now entered its third year of existence. The initial year the program was tainted by what we feel were some questionable tactics in both the RFP invitation proposal and the manner in which the contract was both written and awarded (refer to document ~ & Q~ Two recycling companies submitted protests based on sound objections, and during the course of their pursuit of fair play, we believe they were denied a fair hearing by the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. This happened because of technicalities that were caused by misinformation, lack of understanding with respect to the overwhelming procedures for filing a valid protest based on the procurement laws, and unforeseen political roadblocks. The one important lesson that we have learned from this experience is that questionable Contracts can be challenged. We now understand what these requirements and procedures are, and we believe filing new protests can now be made in a timely fashion. We maintain that, indeed, these early protests offered a strong case and that the points made were valid. We are further convinced by the overwhelming support, understanding, and positive acknowledgement by most parties privy to the matter. As leaders in the recycling community, we feel obligated to bring attention to all matters that we feel are questionable. At this time, uve believe the County is not adequately enforcing the guidelines of the Glass Diversion program and has chosen to let its guard down with respect to va?idating claims (refer to documents L ii In discussions that we have had with County officials, whose job it is to monitor the glass recycling contract, it has become apparent that they have neither the time nor inclination to scrutinize the contracts, the claim forms, and submitted documentation. This inaction has opened the flood gates for a number of questionable practices and led to payments being rriade solely because Gaims have been filed. We believe there has been no ground wort< established to validate these claims (refer to It is with this in mind that we ask for a complete audit of the glass recycling program. Without this audit, the County opens the door for further problems in the glass recycling program. Sometime, somehow, somebody needs to establish annual inventories for each contract year. Recyclers request Audit Page 3 Our request is based on the fact that Recycling Systems of Hawaii, Inc. (RSH) has Chosen or been allowed to again receive payments based on inadequate and, in some cases, total lack of required documentation. In particular, we question the validity of the material being weighed and submitted for payment. We call for an audit of the existing inventories of glass RSH currently has on hand. These must be compared against the glass volumes submitted for payment and the material they have claimed has been marketed. We call for the County to match these inventories against the material that was paid for. It is possible that, without constant monitoring, glass inventories could have been submitted for payment more than once. The glass contract for the fiscal year 1996-97 clearly states, "Glass processor must submit accurate and complete claim forms, bills of lading for material sent out of state, and proof of acceptance by an end-market entity for in-state use". The contract further states that, "Payments will be based on reported amounts of glass diverted to an end- market or out-of state from either landfill". These requirements insure against double dipping, help to establish sound markets, and, in the long run, lessen the burden on monitoring. In our opinion these requirements have not been met by RSH. Furthermore, it is at least a conflict of interest, if not a down right attempt at deception, to establish Hawaii Cracked Glass (HCG) as a possible end-market user when HCG is owned by RSH. This alone should be reason enough to audit RSH. It is clear that the County, through its own inability to adequately manage the glass recycling contract, has allowed a contractor to be paid for services provided when a valid end-market may not exist. If you would take just a short amount of time to examine the enclosed documents, we believe you will draw the same conclusipns we have. Another question has arisen concerning HCG as an end market: if HCG was a credible end-market, why have substantial inventories of crushed glass accumulated over two contract years. RSH has crushed glass inventories stored at three different facilities which include the Railroad Avenue collection site, Business Service facility in Panaewa, and at a residence located in Hawaii Paradise Park. Other sites may exist. It is clear that a realistic and existing end-market was never found for the substantial tons of glass that were submitted for payment to the County. Furthermore, payments were made before that end-market was clearly defined and in place. (Enclosed please find photographs taken inn late August 1997 of glass piles being stored by RSH at three different locations). Recyclers request Audit Page 4 There is a real possibiNity that, one day, this material will find its way to a landfill. If the contractor is being paid to pertorm a service during one contract period and is paid for it, that service should be completed according to the terms of the agreed-upon wntract. Taking into consideration the written guidelines and payment eligibility requiements, we believe RSH did not fulfill their obligation and should not have been paid. We again request an explanation and a thorough audit of their contract. This same request was originally made in a letter to Chief Engineer Donna Kiyosaki dated January 24, 1997 and was based on these very same concerns which existed after the first glass recycling contract. On March 13, 1997, Ms. Kiyosaki replied to our letter that, "the Department of Public Works is responsible for contracts under ourjurisdiction. We will continue to monitor ALL diversion grant contracts on a fair and equitable basis." In recent meetings with Robert Yanabu (he oversees the glass recycling program and the contracts that are awarded from it), he told us that monitoring the contracts and payments are a low priority item for the County, and that doing so requires too much time and effort. L ~(;~c2 Ibcc,cwlewrt5 ~ r ~ We expressed our concerns to Mr. Yanabu and again made a request for an aduit. We specfically questioned the payments to RSH made under the glass recycling program 1996-97. Mr. Yanabu, .after confering with Mr. Jiro Sumada reluctantly agreed that the payments were made outside the requirements of the contract. In so doing, the County has inspired our request for a full and complete~esti~ation of the program and alf payments made. ~ 12~e~=ec2 t 'y~,ruwlvc~"r We do this knowing that the County of Hawaii has shown a great reluctance to do any follow-up and has exhibited an attitude that, if they are forced to do so, it could have consequences on contracts in which we may participate. Ms. Kiyosaki, in a phone call in early September 1997 to Mike Allen told him that, pressuring the County to do these requests, could lead to cancellation of ALL diversion programs. This implied threat only strengthened our resolve to bring to light the underhanded methods that are being used to sweep questionable activities out of public view. The County again seems to have dropped the ball with respect to the Glass Diversion program. The lackadaisical attitude in conducting normal follow-up and enforcement procedures has again drawn negative attention to the program. Furthermore, the attitude and threats made by certain individuals over our attempts to set the matter straight have only brought more concerns about the departments actions. Our sole purpose is to demanded fair-play and honest reporting to help establish the glass recycling program as a successful tool and to further the cause of recycling and landfill diversion. Recyclers request Audit Page 5 In closing, it is our understanding that Robert Yanabu is making recommendations to the chief engineer that would eliminate all requirements for establishing end-market use as a condition for payment. If allowed, this would not only bring additional opportunities for receiving reimbursements for activities that do not benefit the County's recycling goals, but would also increase the cost and demands for constant auditing of each and every contractee. If the objective of the County is to establish a well defined and smooth operating recycling program, then eliminating all procedures for insuring realistic recycling activities would be totally counter-productive. Thank you for your favorable consideration of our request. We look foreward to your immediate review of the problems facing the glass recycling program. Sincerely, Coalition of Concerned Recyclers Represented by Mike Allen and Mike DuBois 4.~ ~lJy ~V Environmental Recycling of Hawaii, Ltd. P.O. Boa 5294, Hilo, ffi 96720 Phone & Faa: (808) 935-9328 County of Hawaii Department of Finance Mr. Harry A. Takahashi Chief Procurement Officer 25 Aupuni Street, Room 118 Hilo, Hawaii 96720.4257; December 6,1995 Re: Contract PROTr:ST Denial: Request a formal contested case hearing. RFP 1533 Contract No. 96112 Having received your denial letter on November 27, 1995, Environmental Recycling now would like to request a formal contested case hearing for RFP 1533 and Contract No. 96112. Environmental Recycling of Hawaii and its representatives would ask you to accept this written protest with respect to Consultant Services Contract No. 96112, dated November 3, 1995 with project title, "Development of a Glass Recycling Program." This particular contract evolved from an RFP No. 1533 titled, "Proposal and Specifications for Contract Services Related to Recycling Programs and Activities for the Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii." This written PROTEST is based on the following criteria: I. RFP Solicitation 1. Funding A. We believe that the County of Hawaii should not request proposals and then accept those proposals if specific monies are not immediately available for a proposed project. B. If the County is aware of specific funds that aze earmazked for specific uses, those funds should be clearly stated or made public knowledge so that all prospective bidders have fair and equitable understanding of what is asked for and available by the County. C. No where in the bid specifications for RFP No. 1533 does it make mention of a specific glass recycling program, any specific budget amounts for the program or the fact that any proposal would be solely used as the County's scope of service to the negotiated contract with the State of Hawaii for specific funding for the States dispersement of the County's defacto share of the State's glass container tax fund. D. The original RFP 1533 states that "the contractor shalt furnish all necessary labor, equipment, transportation and supplies related to recycling programs and activities for the County of Hawaii for a one year period." The scope of the RFP changes dramatically when the County makes funds available for acquisition of equipment, labor and supplies. This Fact should have been clearly stated in RFP 1533. PROTEST DENIAL: Request Formal Contested Case Rearing page 2 E. In addition Contract 96112 calls for two one year options. There is no stated levels of performance for these option years with regards to payment or a defined criteria for which renewal would be established. This makes it highly unlikely that the merits of this contract are being critically assessed. If the same funding is available in "potential" yeazs two and three, the County has virtually committed $648,000.00 to one contractor without going through a proper bid process. II. Conflict of Interest 1. Invested Interest A. The County has exhibited a vested interest in establishing a contract agreement with the proposed contractor Because the State contract under which the County will receive funds has a deadline of June 30, 1996, the County must establish afast-track approach to spend these funds or the funds will be returned to the State. The County developed a vested interest over-and- beyond the normal by not focusing on a cleaz and definite path for establishing a comprehensive and equitable glass recycling program prior to its actual signing of the State agreement. Therefore, they must commit themselves to a single contractor in order to ensure the monies are encumbered even though it is clearly not in the best interest of the community. 2. Time line A. RFP 1533 calls for the proposed scope of work for the contracted services to be provided from 2-1-95 to 1-31-96 on proposal page 3. On specifications page 10 it states the implementation schedule date is "on or about February 1, 1995." On special provision page 1 the Contract "shall be effective for a period of one year beginning January 1, 1995. Because the County of Hawaii did not have the funds in hand in order to proceed with the contract in question, it should not have accepted this proposal or the RFP should have specifically clarified the funds the County anticipated and when they would be made available for this RFP. 3. Double Dipping A. Contract 96112 does not specifically establish ground work for the buy-back program. Nor has an incentive fee's specific dollar amount for the glass collection been established. This further puts all perspective outside collection of glass at a financial disadvantage. Collection of glass under this contract only establishes financial benefits for the contractor. Furthermore, no mention is made of excluding the contractor from also partaking in the County's Diversion Grants Program. By allowing double-dipping it also depletes funds set aside for others to establish their own recycling pro~am. It is the County's intention to terminate the Diversion Grants Program as of August 1, 1996. This along with the notice that State money was available should have been specifically mentioned in a glass recycling RFP in order for each prospective recycler to have an opportunity to respond to the future needs of the County with respect to glass recycling. III. County's Best ]nterest 1. The best interests of'the County should be an over-riding influence in establishing County contracts whether through the IFB or RFP processes. It is clearly not in the best interests of the County to establish through an RFP a community based recycling program where competition of PROTEST DENIAL: Request Formal Contested Case Hearing page 3 costs will not have a considerable bearing on the selection of a contractor. The merits of recycling are based on the; diversion it creates 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 clearly states that the contractor hones to achieve 25% glass diversion by the end of the second year. 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 County paid for equipment that the County needs to ensure it has a fair amount of services received from the contractor in return. 2. No Incentive A. Contract No. 961 l Z 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. In the meantime they are 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 program which is the central part oi'all recycling programs. These facts are 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 program that would maximize diversion. 4. Circumventing IFB A. It is clear from the time line created by RFP 1533 and Contract 96112 and the language contained in both RFP andl the negotiated agreement for services between the State of Hawaii and the County of Hawaii that RFP 1533 was exclusively used by both the State and the County in establishing the scope oi'services for the State contract. The contract between the State and County was executed on 9-1-95. The County then subcontracted on 1 I-3-95 with Recycling PROTEST DENIAL: Request Formal Contested Case Hearing page 4 Systems to carry out the scope of service. This subcontract should have been placed out for competitive bid which would have resulted in the defined scope of work being carried out for the lowest price. The RFP should have been limited to defining the goals and objectives to be performed by the County for the State which is why the subject of Contract 96112 is "Consultant Services." Once the scope of services was defined those services now should have been bid fairly by any interested and qualified entity. B. The County of Hawaii grossly erred in not making it public knowledge that they were selecting input in establishing a "scope of services" to be performed under their contract with the State of Hawaii. By hiding this request in a vague and undefined "catch-all" RFP the County exhibited a very real intention to create a particular situation where one contractor could flourish at the expense of all others. The County's hiding of the true goals of the RFP was enhanced by not making public the State funding for which this RFP critically depends. It should not have been assumed by the County that all prospective bidders would have the knowledge of the availability of State money or the intentions of the County to formulate their scope of services for the State contract from this RFP. Once the County accepted the RFP and before any contractual relationship was established with the bidder all information pertinent to the availability of State funds was hidden by the County and became our knowledge only after the fact through intense investigation. The County offered no time table on availability of the States funds or how much was to be available to the County. These facts point to a concerted effort to limit public knowledge and fairness of opportunity. Conclusion: It is the intent of Environmental Recycling by filing this grievance to have Contract 96112 rescinded. Our hope is that the County will quickly reevaluate its game plan for glass recycling and offer fair and equal opportunities for all to participate in. Comprehensive and effective glass recycling can be established, but only if the County creates an even playing field. Resourcefully yours, Michael J. Allen President Environmental Recycling of Hawaii, Ltd. cc: Office of Administrative Hearings, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs JMtr Os yw o.• Stephen K. Yamashir~ Harry A. Takahashi Mayor Director ~rE uF•H~.? C~nixixfg of ~ttfxrttti ~yc~9-~ul~ DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 25 Aupuni Street, Room 118 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 ~ (806) 961-8234 Faz (BOB) 961-8248 November 21, 1995 Mr. Michael J. Allen Environmental Recycling of Hawaii, Ltd. 36 Makaala Street Hilo, HI 96720 RE: Contract Protest Environmental Recycling of Hawaii, ltd. RFP No. 1533 Contract No. 96112 Your protest regarding the award of Consultant Services Contract No. 96112 relating to Development of a Glass Recycling Program was received on November 16, 1995. RFP 1533 was advertised on November 28, 1994, with a submittal deadline of January 5, 1995. The proposal solicited interested parties to offer proposals expanding recycling and activities for the County of Hawaii. RFP ~,tJOQ"-. 1533 also clearly stated that proposals would be liberally evaluated with awards being made to any proposal or multiple proposals. The specifications also provided interested parties wit}1 opportunities to submit written requests for clarifications and interpretations. I further understand *_hat RFP No. 1533 was mailed to or picked up by 11 interested parties, including your firm. Five proposals were received at 4:30 p.m., January 5, 1995, and Environmental Recycling of Hawaii, Ltd., did not submit a proposal. In accordance with the criteria of RFP 1533, awards were made to each proposer. You also contend that the County should not request proposals unless specific monies are available. In many instances, the County requests proposals in anticipation of funds and in preparation of budgets. In any case, funded appropriations must be in place when contracts are awarded and certified. .eff it4-49/2 pL-t ad i,o7 0 Mr. Michael J. Allen November 21, 1995 Page 2 You have expressed a concern regarding double dipping. I understand that the recipients of the recycling funds are not able to receive diversion grants. After careful review of the handling of RFP No. 1533, it is my conclusion that Environmental Recycling of Hawaii, Ltd., chose not to participate in the request for proposal and that there were no flaws in the selection process. Pursuant to Section 3-126-7 of the Procurement Rules, it is my decision that Environmental Recycling of Hawaii, Ltd.'s protest is hereby dismissed. Sincerely, ' ~ i_ ' ~s ~ Ha ry A. Takahashi Chief Procurement Officer HAT:aeb cc: Chief Engineer Corporation Counsel Comptroller Purchasing Agent If GLASS RECYCLING AND DIVERSION PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAII / s BACKGROUND The County of Hawaii controls two municipal solid waste landfills that receive approximately 150,000 tons of solid waste every year. In 1994, the State legislature passed Act 201, S.B. No. 2170, codified as part of Chapter 342G Hawaii Revised Statutes, which established an advanced disposal fee to fund County glass recovery programs. The Department of Public Works will utilize these funds to operate a Glass Recycling and Diversion Program to provide an incentive for the ~9iversion of glass to re-use markets. Through this program, monies will be awarded to approved glass processors who divert glass, to in- or out-of-state. Payments will be based on reported amounts of glass diverted to an end market or out-of-si:ate from either landfill. Contracts will be awarded on a quarterly basis with monthly payments based on approved invoices. The County reserves the right to terminate or revise the program at any time if it is in the best interest of the County. Each quarter vrill be defined as July to September, October to December, January to March, and April to June. INTRODUCTION Enclosed with these guidelines is an application form which needs to be completed and approved prior to award of any contract. Funding for this program is subject to the availability of advanced disposal fees for the State. It is the approved glass processor's responsibility to check with the County regarding the availability of funds and the fund balance. The monies will be awarded at a rate of $.08 per pound of recycled glass, with required documentation showing proof that the glass was diverted to an off- or on-island market or out-of--state. These guide:ines describe: • funding eligibility and how to apply, • documentation required to complete the application, and • procedures and criteria for evaluating and approving glass processors. FUNDING LEVELS FUR DIVERSION GRANTS Payments will be made at the rate of $.08 per pound for glass, up to a maximum amount equivalent to the available State monies. To be eligible for payment, approved glass processors must show proof that glass has been diverted to an on- or off-island market or out-of-state. The County reserves the right to revise or terminate the program at any time, if it is in the best interest of the County. -2- ELIGIBILITY All participants must have completed an application form and received approval to be deemed a glass processor. Glass processors must submit accurate and complete claim forms, bill of ladino for the material sent out-of-state and proof of acceptance by an end market entity for in-state use. If the glass processor meets the eligibility criteria, monthly payments will be determined according to certified weight scales receipts consistent with the number of pounds reported. ELIGIBLE PARTIES Any business, partnership, corporation, or non-profit organization is eligible to complete an application for participation in the glass program. Said entity must have a General Excise Teix number with the State of Hawaii. APPLICATION FORM AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL All interested parties must complete an application form (attached) with appropriate documentation. To meet the state glass recovery program requirements and to develop a County program which will have continuity and long-term benefits for our entire community, all participants in this program shall submit a plan or proposal which shall include: ~1)) Some form of glass incentive or "buy back" program providing a means of encouraging participation by the public and private collectors; and -3- ~2j(.- Proof that the glass processor is capable of \\p_r-od~ucing an aggregate product which is certified for use in road paving projects; and \(3y Development of programs which actively sponsor public J _ education and awareness of glass recovery and re-use; and (~(4~ Development community programs in cooperation with local businesses to promote glass separation and recycling; and (5 A listing, description and proof of end markets; and ~ ,(6~ Information on the participant's prior experience and t~ technical capability to operate a glass recycling/processing program. Participants will <jlso be required to provide proof of insurance policies naming the County as additionally insured. CONTRACTS The County wi].1 not review or pay any claim form until a contract exists between the glass processor and the County. The County reserves the right not to approve any payments for which back-up documentation or reporting is not complete. The County also reserves the right not to pay on documentation that is received after the last working day of the contract period-~ In the event of any delay beyond the control of the County or lass rocessor the Count 9 P y, at its sole discretion, may extend the agreement in the amount equal to the period of said delay. -4- If no payment requests are received within 30 calendar days after the end of each quarter, contract will be closed. PAYMENT The County intends to make payments no later than 30 days after receipt of monthly claim forms. Participants must attach all necessary documentation with their invoices. Payments may be made monthly. Total payments shall not exceed quarterly estimated totals. If all funds encumbered are not used, contract will be closed and unused funds will lapse back for further use. If payment requests are greater than the amount encumbered, applicant can submit the difference in the next quarter based on the availability of funds. The County will review the claim forms and documentation to determine whether the amount of glass listed will be approved. If conflicts arise within documentation, participants will be informed of the error. Corrections to invoices or documentation must be returned to the Department of Public Works, within ten (10) calendar days from the postmark date on the County's request for correction. Corrections received by the County after the required date will not be allowed. TAX CLEARANCE For contracts $10,000 and over, the successful bidder before entering into a contract with the County of Hawaii, will be required to provide the County with a current State and -5- Federal tax clearance certificate from the Director of Taxation to the effect that all delinquent taxes levied or accrued under State and Federal statutes against said person, firm or corporation have been paid, and any other evidence requested by and acceptable to the contracting officer to demonstrate that the prospective bidder is not in default of any obligations due to the State or Federal or any of its political subdivisions. The tax clearance must be valid on the date the contract is signed by the contractor. In accordance with Sections 103-53 and 237-45, Hawaii Revised Statutes,. the final payment on this contract shall not be settled until the Consultant obtains receipt of a tax clearance from ttie Department of Taxation to the effect that all delinquent taxes levied or accrued under State statutes against the Consultant have been paid. NON-GRATUITY AFFIDAVIT A release form will be required to be executed by the Consultant before final payment will be authorized. A sample of the release form is made a part of the contract. AUDITS Participants are subject to audit by the County to assure that the activities were in accordance with the terms of the Glass Recycling and Diversion Program and the executed contract. If a participant is found to have falsified documentation, the participant wall be responsible to return to the County all grant money received with 15o interest, compounded daily, from the time the participant received the money. -6- QUESTIONS Any explanation desired by an applicant regarding the meaning or interpretation of this solicitation must be requested in writing and with sufficient time allowed for the County's reply to reach all prospective applicants before the submissions of their application. Oral explanations or instructions will not be binding. Applicants may request clarification by submitting questions to: County of Hawaii Department of Public Works Hilo, Hawaii 96720 -7- GLASS RECYCLING AND DIVERSION PROGRAM 1997-1998 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ~(~V. tl COUNTY OF HAWAII ~~'1`1 BACKGROUND Y The County of Hawaii controls two municipal solid waste landfills that receive approximately 150,000 tons of solid waste every year. In 1994, the State legislature passed Act 201, S.B. No. 2170, codified as part of Chapter 342G Hawaii Revised Statutes, which established an advanced disposal fee to fund County glass recovery programs. The Department of Public Works will utilize these funds to operate a Glass Recycling and Diversion Progtam to provide an incentive for the diversion of glass to re-use markets. Through this program, monies will be awarded to approved glass processors who divert glass, to in- or out- of-state. Payments will be based on reported amounts of glass diverted to an end market or out-of- state from either landfill. Contracts will be awarded on a quarterly basis with monthly payments based on approved invoices. The County reserves the right to terminate or revise the program at any time if it is in the best inl:erest of the County. Each quarter will be defined as July to September, October to December, January to March, and April to June. INTRODUCTION Enclosed with these guidelines is an application form which needs to be completed and approved prior to award of a„y contract. Funding for this program is subject to the availability of advanced disposal fees for the State. It is the approved glass processor's responsibility to check with the County regazding the availability of funds and the fund balance. The monies will be awarded at a rate of $.08 per pound of recycled glass, with required documentation showing proof that the glass was diverted to an off- or on-island mazket or out-of-state. These guidelines describe: • funding eligibilit}~ and how to apply, • documentation required to complete the application, and • procedures and criteria for evaluating and approving glass processors. FUNDING LEVELS FOR DIVERSION GRANTS Payments will be made at the rate of $.08 per pound for glass, up to a maximum amount equivalent to the available State monies. To be eligible for payment, approved glass processors must show proof that glass has been diverted to an on- or off-island mazket or out-of-state. The County reserves the right to revise or terminate the program at any time, if it is in the best interest of the County. ELIGIBILITY All participants must have completed an application form and received approval to be deemed a glass processor. Glass processors must submit accurate and complete claim forms, (Exhibits I, II, III), bill of lading for the material sent out-of--state and proof of acceptance by an end mazket entity for in-state use. If the glass processor meets the eligibility criteria, monthly payments will be determined according to certified weight scales receipts consistent with the number of pounds reported. ELIGIBLE PARTIES Any business, partnership, corporation, or non-profit organization is eligible to complete an application for participation in the glass program. Said entity must have a General Excise Tax number with the State of Ha~Naii. APPLICATION FORM AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL All interested parties must complete an application form (attached) with appropriate documentation. To meet the state glass recovery program requirements and to develop a County program which will have continuity and long-term benefits for our entire community, all participants in this program :;hall submit a plan or proposal which shall include: (1) Some form of glass incentive or "buy back" program providing a means of encouraging participation by the public and private collectors. (2) Development of programs which actively sponsor public education and awareness of glass recovery re-use. The public education program shall incorporate radio 2 advertisement:, flyer distribution, proper signage, on-site promotion, work with community groups to address concerns about the programs and its operations. (3) Monitoring and recording of all activity at the glass recovery sites and adjustment of weekly pick up schedules as needed to maximize recovery. (4) Maintenance of records of all volumes processed, diverted, and collected at each recycling drop-off site. (5) Evaluation of recovery volumes at each recycling drop-off site and develop measures to increase participation and increased volumes recovered at each site. (Exhibit III). (6) A listing, description and proof of end mazkets. (Exhibit II) (7) Information on the participant's prior experience and technical capability to operate a glass recycling/processing program. (8) Participants will also be required to provide proof of insurance policies naming the County as additionally insured, for the duration of the agreement, in the following coverages and amounts: a) Automobile Liability Insurance, with minimum limits of not less than Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) for bodily injuries or death per person and not less than Fifty Thousand Dollazs ($50,000) per occurrence for property damages. b) General Liability Insurance, with minimum limits of not less than Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) for bodily injuries or death per person and not less than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) per occurrence for property damages. Applicant may also provide proof that the glass processor is capable of producing an aggregate product which is certified for use in road paving projects and discussion regazding development of community programs in cooperation with local businesses to promote glass separation and recycling as additional information to be considered in reviewing and approving the application. CONTRACTS The County will not review or pay any claim form until a contract exists between the glass processor and the County. The County reserves the right not to approve any payments for which 3 back-up documentation or reporting is not complete. The County also reserves the right not to pay on documentation that is received after the last working day of the contract period. In the event of any delay beyond the control of the County or glass processor, the County, at its sole discretion, may extend the agreement in the amount equal to the period of said delay. If no payment requests are received within 30 calendar days after the end of each quarter, contract will be closed. PAYMENT The County intends to make payments no later than 30 days after receipt of monthly claim forms. Participants must attach all necessary documentation with their invoices. Payments may be made monthly. Total payments shall not exceed quarterly estimated totals. If all funds encumbered are not used, contract will be closed and unused funds will lapse back for further use. If payment requests are greater than the amount encumbered, applicant can submit the difference in the next quarter based on the availability of funds. Payment requests shall be made by submitting all attached Claim Forms (Exhibit I), End Market Verification Form (E:xhibit II) and the Glass Recovery Program Activity Form (Exhibit III). Any payment request submitted without the required forms shall be retumed for completion. The County will review the claim forms and documentation to determine whether the amount of glass listed will be approved. If conflicts arise within documentation, participants will be informed of the error. Corrections to invoices or documentation must be returned to the Department of Public Works; within ten (10) calendar days from the postmark date on the County's request for correction. Corrections received by the County after the required date will not be allowed. TAX CLEARANCE For contracts $10,000 and over, the successful bidder before entering into a contract with the County of Hawaii, will be required to provide the County with a current State and Federal tax clearance certificate from the Director of Taxation to the effect that all delinquent taxes levied or accrued under State and Federal statutes against said person, firm or corporation have been paid, and any other evidence requested by and acceptable to the contracting officer to demonstrate that a the prospective bidder is not in default of any obligations due to the State or Federal or any of its political subdivisions. The tax clearance must be valid on the date the contract is signed by the contractor. In accordance with Sections 103-53 and 237-45, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the final payment on this contract shall not be settled until the Consultant obtains receipt of a tax clearance from the Department of Taxation to the effect that all delinquent taxes levied or accrued under State statutes against the Consultant have been paid. NON-GRATUITY AFFIDAVIT A release form will be required to be executed by the Consultant before final payment will be authorized. A sample of the release form is made a part of the contract. AUDITS Participants are subject to audit by the County to assure that the activities were in accordance with the terms of the Glass Recycling and Diversion Program and the executed contract. If a participant is found to have falsified documentation, the participant will be responsible to return to the County all grant money received with 15% interest, compounded daily, from the time the participant received the money. QUESTIONS Any explanation desired by an applicant regarding the meaning or interpretation of this solicitation must be requested in writing and with sufficient time allowed for the County's reply to reach all prospective applicants before the submissions of their application. Oral explanations or instructions will not be binding. Applicants may request clarification by submitting questions to: County of Hawaii Department of Public Works 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii '96720 5 COUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATION FOR GLASS RECYCLING AND DIVERSION PROGRAM FY /1~7 ~S°/~ i Business Name: ~/C~yi~IG/i<~/~1~i'T,~~ /'L~"l-,~l/?.~ ~ll Bus. Ph.: ~~,~j) _ ~ Contact Person: ~~GCf~~ Business Address: ~ ~ S~ ~c~ f(/~C= ,~`1' ~~~~t+ No. and Street City State Zip Code State of Hawaii General Excise Tax License Number: ~OG'S~ 5 ~ Owners and Officers: Percentage of Name Residence Address Position Ownership ~~ic ~ caZ J.t-~- Ch~pC~7i~i~,gYC , E r9 s E. c~ 9 - c- 3d 3 Number of yeazs in business in Hawaii: 1~ Number of yeazs recycling glass: 3 Amount of glass recycled each year in the last two yeazs: .ti-~ / U~1~' .S Attach a proposal which addresses Items ]-8 plus any additional information as outlined in the "Application Form and Criteria for Approval" section of the program guidelines. -7 SignatJur~e of Owner Officer Print Name Date Approved: Chief Engineer Date EXHIBIT I 7/21 /97 CLAIM FORM FOR GLASS RECYCLING AND DIVERSION PROGRAM COUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION DATE: _ CLAIM PERIOD: CLAIMANT: GENERAL EXCISE TAX iVUMBER: MAILING ADDRESS: DIVERTED P UNDS BUYER Glass TOTAL POUNDS x $.08 = (Grant Due) CLAIMANT SIGNATURE Please attach required documentation to Exhibit II as specified in the Glass Recycling and Diversion Program Guidelines. $ND MARKET V .RIFICATION FORM FOR LASS EXHIBIT II 7117!97 NAME OF BUYER: ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON(S):- TELEPHONE: POUNDS OF GLASS SOLD:- ,TRANSACTION DATE: _ ,TRANSACTION DATE: ,TRANSACTION DATE: Note: Aitach receipt, bill of lading, or invoice as proof for each transaction. Complete separate form for each buyer. GLASS INCENTIVE OR "BUY BACK" PROGRAM: Explanation: GLASS RECOVERY PROGRAM ACTIVITY FORM EXHIBIT III FOR PERIOD FROM: TO GLASS COLLECTION LC1G item 61*: 1. LOCATION: NO. OF POUNDS DATE: 2. LOCATION: NO. OF POUNDS DATE: 3. LOCATION: NO. OF POUNDS: DATE: 4. LOCATION: NO. OF POUNDS: DATE: DESCRIBE MEASURES, AS REQUIRED BY AGREEMENT, TAKEN DURING THIS REPORT PERIOD FOR EACH SIT TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION AND VOLUMES(item 7)*: PUBLIC EDUCATION ACTIVITIES PROMOTING GLASS RECOVERY item 31* 1. Radio advertisement: 2.Newspaper advertisement:_ 3. Flyer distribution: 4. On-site promotion: 5. Proper signage: 6. Community group meetings: _ Note: *item number refers to Application Form and Criteria for Approval. Environmental Recycling P.O. Box 5294 Hilo, HI 96720 (808)935-9328 County of Hawaii Department of Public; Works Hilo, HI 96720 . Aloha Ms. Donna Kiyosaki: ~uM,cc.aJLc.~ 1497 I ~ I am submitting my application for the Glass Recycling and Diversion Program. Enclosed you will find the necessary information for the application criteria. However, I do have some important questions and recommendations that I feel are necessary for the new county diversion program. 1) Under APPLICATION FORM AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, point number 2; Why is road paving a criteria in the glass diversion program? Recycling Systems of Hawaii (RSH) was not required to use their glass in the first year of contract 96112 in a ' road paving project. Why would you put the burden on new companies in this application to be requuired in their first year to produce an aggregate for road paving , companies? There are a multitude of off and on island glass markets to invest in that are not directed at paving companies. Utilizing glass in 'B' rock road base, irrigation, and nonstructural constriction are valid applications for glass as established in Act 201 S. B.2170. These other uses will increase the diversion tonnage of glass on this island. Asphalt companies generally need upwards to 400 tons of glass available when they pave a one mile stre~lch of roadway. This quantity also puts the burden on the new company to store they material. I believe it is unfair for the Department of Public Works to require new glass end-processors to produce glass for paving companies, especially since RSH was given a waiver in their first year. 2) Under PAYMENT; The County diversion program provides for paperwork to be handed in 30 days after quarterly claims are submitted. The same process needs to be incorporated with the Glass Diversion program. Paperwork, as you know, takes several weeks to be returned after claims date of shipment. Why would you require documentation to be available the last day of the contract period when you are aware of the time period necessary for paperwork transition? It is important for companies that divert material during a particular claim period to be paid for all material diverted including that which is diverted on the last day of that period. Therefore, a 30 day claiming period after the close of a quarter should be considered. w Glass Recycling and Diversion Program page 2 3) I also request an independant audit of Recycling Systems of Hawaii' current glass inventory. It is important to establish that RSH cannot claim glass collected prior to the new diversion program. All glass claimed by RSH in their previous contract should be accounted for in order to ensure that double dipping does not occur and that the county isn't paying state funds out of this years glass recycling monies for activities that took place last year. Sincerely, Michael Allen cc: Dominic Yagong, Public Works Committee Chairperson Michael DuBois, Rainbow Recycling & Refuse Development Company Environmental Recycling of Hawaii P.O. Box 5294, Hilo, H'i 96720, Phone 8 Fax: (808) 935-9328 February 20, 1996 ~~y County of Hawaii Mr. Mayor Yamashiro 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Mayor Yamashiro, Thank you for taking the>, time to meet with several waste and recycling haulers from the Kona side of the island. It is our intention to work closer with our County Government and to express our views for the development of the solid waste program. First, the undersigned would like for you to recognize our newly formed group, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, which will address the island's solid waste problems and development. If there is already a committee meeting with your departments^than our group~would like to join yin their efforts to advise the County on waste management. Secondly, the undersignned would like for you to develop an island wide glass recycling program utilizing State tax fees based on a diversion system that incorporates all recycling and waste haulers as well as every person on the island. Signed by the following, _ ~s?.,~_ ~'1~~~~F~~~s ~ C~ - ~ ! , ~ .~a~ ~ ~~tf- - -c ~ tl GLASS RECYCLING AND DIVERSION PROGRAM ~ ~''f 1997-1998 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ' COUNTY OF HAWAII BACKGROUND The County of Hawaii controls two municipal solid waste landfills that receive approximately 150,000 tons of solid waste every year. In 1994, the State legislature passed Act 201, S.B. No. 2170, codified as part of Chapter 342G Hawaii Revised Statutes, which established an advanced disposal fee to fund County glass recovery programs. The Department of Public Works will utilize these funds to operate a Glass Recycling and Diversion Program to provide an incentive for the diversion of glass to re-use markets. Through this program, monies will be awazded to approved glass processors who divert glass, to in- or out- of-state. Payments will be based on reported amounts of glass diverted ~ --~^s-^ f -state from either landfill. Contracts will be awarded on a quarterly basis with monthly payments based on approved invoices. The County reserves the right to terminate or revise the program at any time if it is in the best interest of the County. Each quarter will be defined as July to September, October to December, January to March, and April to June. INTRODUCTION 1?nclosed with these guidelines is an application form which needs to be completed and approved prior to award of any contract. Funding for this program is subject to the availability of advanced disposal fees for the State. It is the approved glass processor's responsibility to check with the County regazding the availability of funds and the fund balance. The monies will be awazded at a rate of $.08 per pound of recycled glass, with required documentation showing proof that the glass was diverted4e-r~ -°~~„d~t~~t_ef state.- .~~~w beu I~.d.~~.l~s These guidelines describe: • funding eligibility and how to apply, • documentation required to complete the application, and • procedures and criteria for evaluating and approving glass processors. FUNDING LEVELS FOR DIVERSION GRANTS Payments will be made at the rate of $.08 per pound for glass, up to a maximum amount equivalent to the available State monies. To be eligibl`e( fo(,r payment, approved glass processors must show proof that glass has been diverted x--er-oflrs~and-market or-out-of-state: The County reserves the right to revise or terminate the program at any time, if it is in the best interest of the County. ELIGII3ILITY All participants must have completed an application form and received approval to be deemed a glass processor. Glass processors must submit accurate and complete claim forms, (Exhibits I, II, III), bill of lading for the material sent out-of--state and proof of acceptance by an end market entity~£or m-stake use. If the glass processor meets the eligibility criteria, monthly payments will be determined according to certified weight scales receipts consistent with the number of pounds reported. ELIGIBLE PARTIES Any business, partnf;rship, corporation, ornon-profit organization is eligible to complete an application for participation in the glass program. Said entity must have a General Excise Tax number with the State of Hawaii. APPLICATION FORM AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL All interested parties; must complete an application form (attached) with appropriate documentation. To meet the state glass recovery program requirements and to develop a County program which will have continuity and long-term benefits for our entire community, all participants in this program shall submit a plan or proposal which shall include: (1) Some form of glass incentive or "buy back" program providing a means of encouraging participation by the public and private collectors. (2) Development of programs which actively sponsor public education and awareness of glass recovery re-use. The public education program shall incorporate radio z END MARKET VERIFICATION FORM FOR GLASS(~F A'V7uc~~t,~~ EXHIBIT II 7/ 17/97 NAME OF BtJYER: ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON(S):_ TELEPHONE: POUNDS OP GLASS SOLD: ,TRANSACTION DATE: TRANSACTION DATE: TRANSACTION DATE: Note: Attach receipt, bill of lading, or invoice as proof for each transaction. Complete separate form for each buyer. GLASS INCENTIVE OR "BUY BACK" PROGRAM: Explanation: COUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ~:;~s:'+~'~J ROBERT K. YANABU Civil Engineer `1L /-S Fc 28 Aupuni Street Tal. (808) 9Bh89p7- Hilo, Hawaii 98720 Fax. (808) 969-7~329- S~/ yc7~ i" t~ n, 'i+ 342G-S6 H);ALTI-I f [§342G-S6] County glass recovery progrmns; requirements. (a) All county glass recovery programs shall include: Household hRZUmo Ij (1) Some form of glass incentive or "buy back" program providing a means of encouraging participation by [he public or private collectors; and (2) Thr paving during each of [he first two years of [he equivalent of one mile Construction proja j' of two lane asphalt roadway as part of a research and demonstration class coRlaiucr rec 'i' program utilizing glassphalt. ~~(b) In addition, county programs to y include but shall not be limited [o: ~ PAF ~i'. e ~~I (1) Funding of the collection and processing of glass containers either §342A-1 1 through existing county agencies or through external contracts for ser- requires: ,J: vices; ~ "Complaint (2) Subsidizing [he transportation (ot] processed material to off-island mar- person is viola[int j'. kcts; to this chapter. (3) The development of collection facilities or [he provision of containers for s "Dcpartmcl l'~j glass recycling, or the incremental portions of multi-material programs, "Director" ra'~ (4) Additional research and developmenC programs, including grants to pri- ~a .4 "Disposal" ,r~ vate secror cntrcprencucs, especially those activities developing higher ing, or placing of ~'w'. value uses for the material; and any constituent t (5) Public education and awareness programs focusing on glass recovery, or ° 5 discharged into a the incremental portions of multi- material programs. [L 1994, c 201, c •`Incineratic pt oC §2J .7 designed fbr the dioxide, and wat §T', [§342G-87] Contract 1'or administrative services. The department may "Inert fill n t', contract the services of a third party to administer the advance disposal fee program asphalt, brick, am :i under this part. [L 1994, c 201, pt of §2] twelve inches, co bcry, brush, or Ire [§342G-SS] Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this part, solid waste other or any rule adopted [hereunder, shall be fined no[ more than $10,000 for each for the purposes separate offense. Each day of each violation shall constitute a separate offense. Any ' `Open dam action taken to impose or collect the penalty provided for in [his section shall be applicable standa considered a civil action. [L 1)94, c 201, p[ of §2] c "Party" me - a party in any cc [y342G-S9] Enforcement. The deparunent of health shall enforce this part. `~7 "Permit" n [L 1994, c 201, pt of"y2] ~ and opemtc any disposal system. '~'f, CHAPTER 342H any solid waste SOLID WASTE POLLUTION chapter, or by ru dep:rtment. I. ;i f g "i~ "Person" r PART I. DIiFINITION.S AND Ci liNiiRAL PROVISIONS ~,I; VatC COrpOril(1p11, 'y~ SECTION 34211-1 DEFINITIONS ~ eStalC, or any O[t i' t~ 342}{-2.S DI]`ARTMLN'r OP IIIiALTI1~DELEGATION OF ENFORCEMPNT POWERS "Pe(rOICUm h. 342H-7 EIJFORCEMENT that IS hquld at 5' ` 342H-B EIAERGENCY POWERS; IROCEUURGS r, pounds per squat 342H-9 PIiNALT1ES "PCtroleum ~ 342H-1t) AI)MINI$TRATIVE PENALTIES ~1, 342!1-10.5 DISPOSITION DP COLLECfeU PINES AND PENALTIES rC1L'aSC Of pEtrO1C 342H-11 tMIUNCr1VE AND OTIIER RCLIIiF the d1rCCLOr. I, 342H-IB GI=PEC'f OP IAWS, ORDINANCES, AND RULES ~ "Pollution' t. "Recycling I,1 PART' IL SOLID WASTE CONTROL oT secondary resour ~,8'.; 3421{-30 PROUmrnoN ~ I-Std f 1 + ~uN 8 iaa S.B. NO. 210 THE'SENATE S.D. 2 SEVENTEENTH LEGISLATURE, 1994 H.D.3 bYATE C7F HAWAII ~ ~ ~ C.0. 1 _ ~ nA A BILL FOR AN ACT ~ RELATING TO RECYCLED MATERIALS. BE TT IIYACT® BY Tf~ LEGLSLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII: i JEST 1. m~_ 1_ :ct~t_ro fin.ie hh3~ RaW?<. i_'C nns?rC?V _ _y~ 2 resources and physical environment must be managed and protected 3 in a manner that ensures the health, safety, and welfare of the 4 citizens of the State and preserves our limited natural resources :i for future generations. The 1993 Energy and Environmental Suaunit 6 was convened by t:he legislature on October 8, 1993, to identify 7 issues and build broad-based support for initiatives that will 8 move Hawaii forward in the areas of energy and the environment. 9 T:zis Act is-the result of the collaborative efforts of 10 participants of t:he summit. 11 SECTION 2. Chapter 342G, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is 12 amended by adding a new part to be appropriately designated and 13 to read as follows: 14 "FART GLASS CONTAINER RECOVERY 15 S342G-A De.Einitions. As used in this part, unless the 16 context requires otherwise: 17 "~~lass container impbrter" means any person who is engaged 18 in the manufacture of glass containers within the State or who 19 imports glass containers from outside the State for sale oz use RF52075 5.92170 CD1 SMA Page 2 2170 S. B. NO. S.D.2 H.D. 3 C.D. 1 1 within the State. The term includes federal agencies and 2 military distributors, but does not include airlines and shipping 3 companies that merely transport glass containers. 4 "Glass incentive" means an incentive paid to licensed 5 recyclers for rec}cling glass containers. Such incentives may be 6 structured to include the costs of collection and processing, and 7 a "buy back" incentive to increase participation by the public 8 and private haulers. 9 "Glass recovery program" means a program for glass recovery 10 and reuse for purposes including but not limited to: 11 (1) Glass container reuse or recycling whereby containers 12 are refilled, processed for shipment out of the State, 13 or crushed into aggregate substitute; and 14 (2) Use in roadway materials or concrete as provided in 15 this part. 16 "Glassphalt" means an asphaltic concrete mixture utilizing 17 crushed glass, under controlled gradation conditions, as a 18 substitute for a percentage of the aggregate in the mix. 19 $342G-B Advaince disposal fee. (a) Every glass container 20 importer shall pa}~ to the department an advance disposal fee. 21 The fee shall be imposed only once on the same glass container 22 and shall not be zissessed on drinking glasses, cups, bowls, RFS2075 SH2170 CD7. SMA Page 3 2170 S.B. NO. 3.D.2 H.D. 3 C.D. i 1 plates, ash trays, and similar tempered glass containers. For 2 the period September 1, 1994, to September 1, 1996, the fee shall 3 be one and one-half cents per glass container. Thereafter, the 4 fee shall be set by the legislature at a rate the legislature 5 determines will permit funding of county glass recovery programs 6 as required to achieve the following glass recovery program 7 goals: 8 (1) Twenty-five per cent by the end of 1996; 9 (2) Fifty per cent by the end of 1998; and 10 (3) Hy the end of 2000 and thereafter, the maximum amount 11 practicable considering the economic and environmental 12 benefits to be realized. 13 (b) In January 1995, the department, with assistance from 14 the county solid waste divisions, shall evaluate the amount of 15 glass recovered during the first fifteen months of the program 16 and recommend to the legislature any modification in the fee 17 structure to meet county glass recovery program funding 18 requirements. Thereafter, prior to the convening of the 19 legislative session in each subsequent even-numbered year, the 20 department of health, in coordination with the counties, shall 21 report to the legislature on the effectiveness of the program and 22 make appropriate recommendations for modification of the fee. RFS2075 SH2170 CI)1 SMA Page a S, B. N O. S~0 2 H.D. 3 C.D. 1 1 (c) The legislature shall have exclusive authority over all 2 matters subject to this chapter. 3 (d) No country shall impose or collect any assessment or fee 4 on glass containers for the same or similar purpose that is 5 subject of this chapter. 6 S342G-C Glass container importers; registration, 7 recordkeepinq requirements. (a) By September 1, 1994, all glass 8 container importers operating within the State shall register 9 with the department, using forms prescribed by the department, 10 and shall notify i:he department of any change in address. After 11 September 1, 1994, any person who desires to conduct business in 12 this State as a g:Lass container importer shall register with the 13 department no later than one month prior to the commencement of 14 the business. 15 (b) All glass container importers registered with the 16 department shall maintain records reflecting the manufacture of 17 their glass containers as well as the importation and exportation 18 of products packaged in glass. The records shall be made 19 available, upon request, for inspection by the department; 20 provided that any proprietary information obtained by the 21 department shall be kept confidential, and shall not be disclosed 22 to any other person except: RFS2075 SB2170 CD1 SMA Page 5 S, B, N O. S1D. 2 H.D. 3 C.D. 1 1 (1) As may be reasonably required in an administrative or 2 judicial proceeding to enforce any provision of this 3 chapter or any rule adopted pursuant to this chapter; 4 or 5 (2) Under an order issued by a court or administrative 6 agency hearing officer. 7 S342G-D Deposit into environmental management special fund; 8 distribution to counties. (a) Revenues generated from the 9 advance disposal fee shall be deposited into a special account in 10 the environmental management fund. Moneys from the special 11 account shall be used to fund county glass recovery programs 12 established in accordance with the requirements under section 13 342G-F;, provided that no moneys shall be made available to a 14 county unless the county has first submitted its formally adopted 15 integrated solid waste management plan to the department for 16 review. In the event of any surplus in the special account, the 17 department shall recommend a reduction in the fee as deemed 18 necessary. 19 (b) The department shall distribute the moneys contained in 20 the special account to the counties in proportion to the amount 21 of glass imported into each county based on the county's de facto 22 population. The distribution shall be in the form of direct ?3 contracts with t:he department as permitted under chapters 103 and 24 103D. RFS2075 SB2170 C:Dl SMA Page 6 2170 S. B. NO. S.D.2 H.D. 3 C.D. 1 1 (c) No more than ten per cent, in the aggregate, of the 2 revenue collected in any one year may be used by the department 3 for administrative and educational purposes and to promote glass 4 recovery, recycling, and reuse in Hawaii through research and 5 demonstration projects. 6 $342G-E Container inventory report and payment. (a) 7 Payment of the advance glass disposal fee shall be made quarterly 8 based on inventory reports of the glass container importers. For 9 the first payment, all glass container importers, on or before 10 January 15. 1995, shall submit to the department documentation in 11 sufficient detail that identifies the number of glass containers 12 manufactured or imported to the State and sold or distributed, by 13 manufacturer or distributor, during the calendar quarter ending 14 December 31, 1994. 15 (b) The amount due from glass container importers less 16 glass containers exported for the calendar quarter ending 17 December 31, 1994, shall be the sum equal to the number of glass 18 containers provided in subsection (a) multiplied by the advance 19 disposal fee of .015 cents. Payment shall be made by check or 20 money order payable to the "Department of Health, State of 21 Hawaii". All subsequent inventory reports and payments shall be 22 made not later than the fifteenth day of the month following the 23 end of the previous calendar quarter. RFS2075 SB2170 CD1 SMA Pagel ^(O, 2170 ~7 1 V S.D. 2 ht. D. 3 ~ ~ 1// S3 24 ~ County glass recovery programs; requirements. (a) 2 All county glass recovery programs shall include: 3 (1) Some form of glass incentive or "buy back" program 4 providing a means of encouraging participation by the 5 public or private collectors; and 6 (2) The paving during each of the first two years of the 7 equivalent of one mile of two lane asphalt roadway as 8 part of a research and demonstration program utilizing 9 glassphalt. 10 (b) In addition, county programs may include but shall not 11 be limited to: 12 (1) Funding of the collection and processing of glass 13 containers either through existing county agencies or 14 through external contracts for services; 15 (2) Subsidizing the transportation or processed material to 16 off-island markets; 17 (3} The development of collection facilities or the 18 provision of containers for glass recycling, or the 19 incremental portions of multi-material programs; 20 (4) Additional research and development programs, including Z1 grants to private sector entrepreneurs, especially 22 those act?~ities developing higher value uses for the 23 material; and RFS2075 SB2170 CD1 SMA Page 8 S. B. N S~D. 2 H.D. 3 C.D. 1 1 (5) Public education and awareness programs focusing on 2 glass recovery, or the incremental portions of multi- 3 material programs. 4 S342G-G Contract for administrative services. The 5 department may contract the services of a third party to 6 administer the advance disposal fE:e program under this pari. 7 S342G-H Penalties. Any person who violates any provision S of this part, or any rule adopted thereunder, shall be fined not 9 more than $10,000 for each separate offense. Each day of each 10 violation shall constitute a separate offense. Any action taken 11 to impose or collect the penalty provided for in this section 12 shall be considered a civil action. 13 S342G-I Enforcement. The department of health shall 14 enforce this part,." 15 SECTION 3. Act 8, Special Session Laws of Hawaii 1993, is 16 amended by adding a new section to part IV of the chapter 17 established in section 2 of the Act, to read as follows: 18 "S - Construction projects, roadway materials; recycled 19 glass content requirements. (a) When purchasing roadway 20 materials or other high-value, end-use ap lications for ublic 21 projects, state agencies shall, and county agencies may, purchase 22~~aterials with minimum recycled glass content meeting 23 specifications adopted by the policy office which, at a minimum, 24 shall provide for: RFS2075 SB2170 CI11 SMA Page 9 2170 S. B. NO. S.D. 2 H.O. 3 C.D. i 1 A minimum recycled glass content of ten per cent 2 crushed aggregate in treated or untreated basecourse in 3 paving materials that shall not reduce the quality 4 standards for highway and road construction; and 5 (2~ The use of one hundred per cent aggregate in b nonstructural capital improvement applications. 7 (b) A11 highway and road construction and improvement 8 projects funded by the State or a county or roadways that are to 9 be accepted by the State or a county as public roads shall 10 utilize a minimum of ten per cent crushed glass aggregate, with 11 one hundred per cent passing a one-fourth inch sieve, in all 12 basecourse (treated or untreated) and subbase when the glass is 13 available to the quarry or contractor at a price no greater than 14 that of the equivalent aggregate. 15 (c) All state and county construction projects calling for 16 nonstructural backfill shall utilize one hundred per cent crushed 17 glass when available at a cost equal to or lower than the 18 equivalent aggregate. 19 (d) As used in this section: 20 "Basecourse" means the layer or layers of specified material 21 or selected material of a designed thickness to support a surface 22 course. RFS2075 SB2170 CUl SMA Page 10 2170 S.I. NO. S.D.2 H.D. 3 C.D. 1 1 "Environmental management special fund" means the fund 2 established by section 342G-63. 3 / "Nonstructural backfill" means use as fill in areas not ~ 4 subject to structural loading, including but not limited to 5 utility line bedding, drainage backfill behind retaining walls, 6 drainage line backfill. i~~ leachfiel3s or french drains, and 7 similar uses." 8 SECTION 4. :section 264-B.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is 9 repealed. 10 ("[5264-8.5] Ose of glassphalt for pavement construction 11 and repair; required. (a) Beginning on September 1, 1993, all 12 state and county highway construction and improvement contracts 13 for state and county roadways shall require the utilization of 14 glassphalt for pavement construction when crushed glass is 15 available at a cost equal to or lower than aggregate. 16 (b) As used in this section, "glassphalt" means an 17 asphaltic concrete mixture utilizing crushed glass, under 18 controlled gradation conditions, as a substitute fo,: a percentage 19 of the aggregate in the mix.") 20 SECTION 5. In codifying the new part added to chapter 342G, 21 Hawaii Revised Statutes, by section 2 of this Act, the revisor of 22 statutes shall substitute appropriate section numbers for the ?3 letters used in designating the new sections in this Act. RFS2075 SB2170 CD1 SMA Page 1 1 S.~. N S~D. 2 H.D. 3 C.D. 1 1 SECTION 6. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed. 2 New statutory material is underscored. 3 SECTION 7. This Act shall take effect upon its approval; 4 except that sections 3 and 4 shall take effect on July 1, 1994. A~provod by the Governor ,n JUN 2 1 1994 - RFS2075 S82170 CDl SMA ~ < v~G~'~~-~ t\ ~v VvN z, rLC ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ i~'~`~ r `6 ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j r I l ' I X' ~ ^{j I ` ' I 1 u~ \ I :ter 1 _ ~ ~ c~~~ ~ ~ t '.G l 1 ~~P, _ _iJ J r ~ ~ IJ ~ Tv Oi M4\ • 1,;,.. ~ Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Stephan K. Yamashiro ~ ~.i Ch¢J Fnd.nn~ ,wy:, , ~ i y Jiro A. Sumada Osi'o~'w~''~~ Depi<ty C lu [,:d; q, f~nuntg of ~ttEuttii DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Acpun( Streci, Room 202 Hilo, Huwa,i 96720-425? (808)~~01 S?:I Fax (SOR)96i-863u March 13, 1961 MR MICHAEL ALLEt7 ENVIROt7MEN .'AL REC'i l: L.t:G PO IIOX 529; HILO HI 95'.'20 SUBJECT: GLASS NECYCLING At:J DIVr,ESION PROGRA:d The following are responses to several questions you raised: I. I be!ie~~e !hat we car: look at an initial "grace" period of 6-9 months tc allow a glass recycling company time to gear up to be able to produce a crushed glass product which meets specifications for road construction. Heweve,, I still believe it is necessary to req~.:ire that glass recy~~lers have the capability, through proper documentation, of providing glass for road projects as may be req-.,i red. Uncle, the State law establishing the advance di sposa. £ee for glass, roar? protects is a requirement. Therefore, unless this rule is revised, the Co~:nty deeds to assure that anyone claimir_g glass diversia; grants can meet this requirement. 2. We w-ll ^er ify ~.~itt: o„r P^c~r~ting sac~icr. to see if ;-cur recommer.datinn is work„hle. If there are no serious concerns, we ca:: allow the extended slain period. 3. The Depart:^.e,.t oL 2uF1ic works is responsible for contracts under our jurisdictio::. We will continue to monitor ALL diversion grant contracts on a Lair and eq~:i t.--,h'~e basis. DOLINA F~af K B:'i^_S?..'(?, ? Chief E_ri Nc--: cc Du'.'i::_, pry- Mtr or M~ ~'''ci: ~'(`'o Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Chief Engineer Stephen K. Yamashiro re°y°r Jiro A. Sumach oiih,,,,; Deputy Chief Engineer or xr• ~IILYTCt~1 111 ~tIfU2lti DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupu ni Scceeq Room 202 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720.4252 (808) 961-8321 • Fax (808) 969.7138 October 6, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING OF HAWAII LTD P 0 BOX 5294 HILO HI 96720 SUBJECT: RFP 5-3316 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A GLASS RECYCLING PROGRAM COUNTY OF HAWAII After careful review of all proposals submitted in response to RFP 5-3316, we are hereby cancelling the solicitation prior to award in accordance with Hawaii Administrative Rules Title 3, Subtitle 11, Chapter 122, Subchapter 11, Section 3-122-95 & 96. The cancellation of this solicitation and tkte development and advertisement of a glass recycling incentives program are in the County's best interest. The development of a strong incentives program will allow greater participation among the recycling community while also providing contractual safeguards to insure the proper diversion of glass, the operation of buy-back programs, continued public education and outreach, and the production of glass aggregate suitable for road base. While this incentives program will be similar to the glass program operated by the City and County of Honolulu, due to the differences (costs, population centers, etc.) between our island and Oahu, we will be working on a program tailored specifically to our County over the next couple of months. We plan to complete the development of and advertise this program by the end of the year. Attached are your proposal and any other information you submitted. Thank you for your continued concern and participation in the future of recyclting for the Hig Island. n ~r-I / DONNA FAY, K.'"IfIYOSAK Ij, .E. Chief Engineer Attachment cc: SWD Finance Director ~l /i i ~Ll-'~~ <<K1~ 1 Environmental Recyrling of Hawaii, Ltd. P.O. Box 5294 Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 935-9328 County of Hawaii Mayor Stephen Yamashiro 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 961-8211 July 11, 1996 RE: CONCERNS, SUGGESTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ABOUT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. S-3316 CONTRACT SERVICES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A GLASS RECYCLING PROGRAM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF HAWAII. Dear Mayor Yamashiro, Per our conversation you requested I outline my concerns and limitations about the upcoming RFP S-3316. The overriding concern that we feel as a prospective bidder deals with the problems of establishing an even playing field with respect to the establishment of a glass recycling program under this RFP. Specifically, Recycling Systems of Hawaii through their contracting with the County of Hawaii under Contract 96112 was appropriated $216,000 of which the bulk of that funding primarily was used for the purpose of purchasing specific glass recycling equipment, transportation, labor, supplies and appurtenances. Included in that was a glass crushing machine, a bobcat, truck scale, roll off truck, flatbed truck, roll off collection containers, and smaller plastic toter bins...etc. The problem now is that by attempting to establish a fair bid process one bidder has been placed in an unfair competitive advantage. The current RFP No. S-3316 alludes to and in many instantances specifically gives added weight to a specific past awardee and prospective bidder for the following evaluation factors listed in the current RFP: - technical capabilities - competitiveness ~ v ~~Q. ~ Concerns & Limitations & Suggestions continued Page 2 - reasonableness of price - stability -financing plan which may include the ability to obtain financial support to supplement the development of the program - ability to work with and coordinate the promotion of the program with businesses, community groups, schools, and related industries for further development. Furthermore, special consideration is given for experience in establishing and carrying out glass recycling programs. All of the above dangerously point to the abilities of one bidder, Recycling Systems of Hawaii. I say this because as the current glass recycling contract holder they have been afforded the ability to establish, maintain and accumulate these necessary provisions while all other interested parties were eliminated from the same opportunities because they were not rewarded with a glass recycling contract by the County of Hawaii. The competitive nature of the recycling industry coupled with the consumers willingness to participate if the rewards are right will make for a successful glass recycling program. As I see it the first year will be critical in establishing a long term viable glass recycling program. In other words, because the County does not have a successful program in existence the formulation of a program in the first year will have to factor in some costs that may not be incurred in subsequent years. These costs should be factored into the responsibilities of the individual contractors. The individual contractors will be reimbursed through a higher level of County funding based on costs per ton. As for the limitations of RFP S-3316 I think you will agree that the success of a glass recycling program does not necessarily need to be tied to the most complicated strategies. As we discussed we are not sending rocket ships to the moon, but in reality we are trying to develop the most comprehensive and successful glass recycling program that the available funding will allow. Since the most successful glass recycling programs are driven by the greatest financial reward possible, it behooves us to earmark as much of the funding to financial reward as possible. In addition, to create an environment where the most amount of participants as possible will be enticed into partaking in the program created. With this in mind let's mirror the most successful recycling programs that have been developed. Let's establish programs that are not geared towards limiting participation but openly entertain the involvement of all possible participants. ~ fi E~~~e<-~t~ ,_,J Concerns & Limitations & Suggestions continued Page 3 v f We ask you Mayor to postpone the deadline for RFP S-3316. In addition, we ask that the major component of the County's glass recycling program be based on the diversion grant system, similar to what exists now with respect to the diversion of paper goods. We call for a ten cent per pound processing fee to be paid to all glass processors who are responsible for off island shipment of the commodity. In addition, eligibility will include abuy-back to the general public and other businesses of no less than three cents per pound. This program is simple to implement and easy to monitor, because to be paid a contractor must have appropriate bill of sale and shipping documents. Furthermore, payment is based solely on pertormance. If you recycle one pound of glass, you are rewarded for that exact effort. No payments are made based on unprovable activities and the County reimburses no body for equipment, labor, supplies, transportation and appurtenances. It is left up to the contractor alone to determine his level of involvement. Simply said, if he is making money he'll adjust his activities to respond. The bottom line is that by eliminating no body from the process you give every body the same opportunities and you expand the effort to all corners of the island. What could be more beneficial to the success of glass recycling than that. What the County may consider also is establishing an advisory committee made up of active participants in the glass program for the purpose of monitoring its success and recommending other options that will improve this program in the future. In closing the County needs to make full realization that establishing glass recycling as it did under Contract 96112 only jeapordizes the chances of establishing comprehensive recycling. Eliminating participants, establishing ill-will and limiting the availability of recycling opportunities in certain geographic areas will do nothing positive for establishing glass recycling. However, to truely educate the people of the Big Island of the merits of recycling will begin with viable programs and will have to include a financial incentive that hopefully will lead to the realization that glass recycling, like other forms of recycling, is a critical component of every day life. Sincerely, ~ Michael J. Allen Owner