How do I get to Starbucks
Amazing. The Mission Viejo trash removal consultant Joe Sloan recommends the highest bidder rather than any of the three trash haulers whose proposals were each lower in cost to our residents and business community.
Before commenting further let us take a trip down memory lane involving a more complex and vital vehicle than a trash truck. I am referring to the Lunar Rover LRV-1 and the competitive bid for that NASA program.
The following is from space review http://www.thespacereview.com/article/127/1
“There were three primary targets Boeing’s LRV had to meet: performance, schedule and cost; the LRV had to meet all the demanding performance goals under actual conditions on the Moon, it had to be delivered on time and it had to be within Boeing’s lowest bidder figure. [NASA project engineer “Sonny”] Morea made sure the contract was drafted to protect NASA’s interests in all three areas. In addition, Boeing had to build 1-G vehicles for astronaut training and other test units as well. Basically, Boeing had to design, develop, test, build and deliver the LRV in time for Apollo 15 and have it perform flawlessly on the Moon or suffer financial consequences.”
Notice that it had to be within Boeing’s “lowest bidder figure.” On July 11, 1969, “the LRV Task Team issued a request for proposals from various NASA contractors” including Boeing and Grumman.
Back to earth. That’s not what is being discussed in Mission Viejo. At last night’s meeting with Waste Management, W/M, whose initial proposal was $17 million higher than the lowest bidder, the spokesperson did not address or offer to justify the monthly cost of their service which I believe was above Joe Sloan’s benchmark estimate.
What Cathy Schlicht and myself heard was an overview of W/M’s food processing technology to increase diversion. Their plan calls for construction of an MRF facility in the city of Orange in 2011.
We were shown photos of solar compactors and recycling Kiosks that could be installed in our city parks, neither of which relate to out household trash removal.
One comment by W/M’s Charissa McAfee that totally blew me away was during her review of two graph tables on our priorities such as “maintaining a low crime rate” and “maintaining streets conditions” followed by providing “trash collection and recycle services.”
I have the same Sept. 2008 True North Research report. Is she saying that council members are not aware of the priority for our trash removal or that W/M is the only vendor qualified to perform this delicate task?
Carisa told us that MV residents get “drivers they know and trust.”
What? I have lived in the same house for years before they were awarded the original contract. As I am often home during the day they pick up our trash I do see the drivers but I surely do not get to talk to them no less get to know them. It’s a good thing that City Hall and the conference room is a no smoking area.
MV residents have done a commendable job of recycling. Yes, we care that our trash is picked up. However, once the truck leaves our front door that is where our participation ends. Furthermore, W/M is not the only trash hauler that has invested in capital improvements to protect the environment. CR&R has a material recovery operation in Perris, CA. Athens has one in the City of Industry. It’s in every trash haulers best interest to have these operations.
One area worth following as this saga continues will be the use of existing vehicles rather than having a level playing field where all bidders provide new CNG or LNG trucks. W/M provided an alterative bid without new vehicles. If that new cost is used, we have just removed the “apples to apples” comparison. I did question that item last night and was told that the other bidders did not offer an alternative proposal.
And lastly the subject of franchise fees. In essence, going with the highest bidder wipes out a tax reduction for everyone. In addition to removal of our trash we pay a 5% franchise fee that would be lower if the lowest bidder would be awarded the contract.
After tonight’s meeting with representatives of Athens I will post my comments on CR&R.
We are retired and living on a fixed income like many others in MV.. We are astonished that no one seems to get it that these are hard times for so many people that are hurting and trying to live month to month. If all the vendors bidding on this contract for a 10 year duration, they are all qualified, they have met the bidding requirements then it is a complete no brainer. Select the low bidder and be done with it. Please use common sense for a change,
Accepting the lowest bid makes sense in a “normal” situation where all service providers are about the same. I am not sure Mission Viejo’s contracts are normal. If the council were to choose CR&R, what would stop the usual bait and switch? Look at what has happened on CIPs as well as service contracts. E.g., landscapers can double the “set amount” of a job after submitting the lowest bid. The city employees don’t care about Other People’s Money, and the council majority has never held the line or even tried.
I am not favoring any vendor, and I don’t like Waste Management. However, tell me the difference between WM being hammered down in price and the lowest bidder getting the contract and then bringing up the price through “added value” and other nonsense as usual.
As only one example (I could name many), Medix got the contract and didn’t provide what they said in the number of units dedicated to the city. The council’s reaction: oh, no problem. The vendor did NOT have to refund money saved by breaching the contract.
Watchman.
When I truly worked for a living I participated in several million dollar plus contract negotiations, some of which we won and others that we lost. In some cases our pricing was higher but generally speaking it was not typical.
In this contract the low bidder has offered to give the city a security bond. Even the consultant has stated that ALL of the bidders are qualified firms. He went even further to say that CR&R might be close to the margin. In my view it is not his responsibility to question a business decision as to what level of profit any bidder sets for themselves. If CR&R wants to leave money on the table that’s their call. As CR&R serves many of our south county neighbors perhaps there’s an advantage to adding MV to their portfolio.
Instead of focussing on low bidder CR&R I am surprised that Joe Sloan hasn’t beaten up on W/M to say that they were too high. I thought he was hired to represent us.
Yes, I know that once a vendor is selected, then Joe Sloan and the council will begin negotiations with the recommended source. One problem. Once you know you have been selected you are less inclined to sharpen your pencil in that you would only be giving up margin.
However, let’s make council members feel good by cutting the 10 year exclusive contract from approximately $100 million to $98.9 million so that they can brag that they “saved taxpayers over one million dollars.”,
Sure. and I fell off a turnip truck last night and broke my arm.
PS: I have corresponded with elected officials in both the City of Orange and RSM and received favorable feedback on their CR&R contracts. Aside from allegations not backed up by public documents, i was told that CR&R did not request rate increases above and beyond the contract obligations except for the standard the annual COLA as defined in the agreements.
Larry,
Thank you for putting in the time to check things out and blog. I barely have time to pop off here after working all day. For those who don’t “get it,” the process was wired by the consultant to give the contract to Waste Management. Then, from pressure by Larry Gilbert and Joe Holtzman, they made all the paperwork public in a knee jerk action. Wow, then the truth started to seep out. The counicl probably didn’t know the extent of the fraud or they would have never ordered the paperwork published on the web.
I don’t anticipate an rational decision by our council. Why start now? There was hope for the new guy, Dave Leckness, but we shall see if he already has developed Stockholm Syndrome ( that condition known to occur in a prisoner when an individual accepts the mindset of their captors).
Get ready to pay as Waste Mangement enjoys their new found millions.
Folks. I just attended another trash vendor meeting at city hall. Tonight’s representative was Brett Barbre on behalf of Athens Services. City Manager Dennis Wilberg handed A CD with copies of the prior meeting remarks to both Brett and Cathy Schlicht. They are providing the same information to the potential vendors, not just council members. He told me that they are doing their best to get the same info on the city web site asap.
Monday June 7th is surely going to be an interesting council meeting.
As we are not in Vegas I will not be setting odds as to which of the three bidders will walk away smiling. Consensus is that Judy Ware’s firm, Ware Duisposal, is simply not large enough to handle the contract.
My comments about the current low bidder, CR&R to be posted tomorrow.
This affair smells–and it is not the trash that smells. When the low cost provider is “trashed” by the consultant you have to wonder about his integrity.
I have built three houses, two sailboats, and two industrial buildings using the low cost providers—and all these items have been great.
Only a fool pays more than they should !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Council members have made remarks or shown their behavior, and I doubt much will change.
Ury has been quiet, but wasn’t he sneaky about meeting with Athens? Follow the money and Ury’s sneaky vote belongs to Athens. Schlicht says she prefers the lowest bidder, CR&R, but didn’t she also say Waste Mgmt deserved consideration? Ladesma says Athens, and he appears to be thinking Waste Mgmt would be OK. Kelley does whatever staff tells her (brain dead). Leckness recently discovered there’s a contract at stake and he is changing his campaign platform of “wave at a cop” to “wave at a trash hauler.”