Questions regarding the Solid Waste Management Study RFP
- Department:County Manager / Administration
- Start Date:06/10/2015 12:00 PM
- Close Date:01/01/2100 12:00 AM
1. In the Project Overview section (Page 2) of the RFP, Item 2 the assignment states “Cost-benefit analysis of each option’s impact on the City of Roxboro; include capital and annual operating costs for the City of Roxboro”. As this RFP has been issued by the County, will the City of Roxboro be open and cooperative to a review of their operations? Yes, the City is aware of the RFP and that a consultant may contact them requesting information regarding their solid waste system and data.
2. The RFP indicates both the City of Roxboro and the County are involved in the study. Will all of the funding and the contracting come from one source? Yes. All funds will come directly from the County.
3. In the Project Overview section on Page 2 of the RFP, Item 5 lead-in & Item 5a states, "Waste stream and recycling system analysis. Including the following: A waste characterization study”. Does the County seek a waste characterization study, meaning a field study of randomly selected waste loads where in-depth sorting and categorization is conducted? Yes. The waste characterization study will select and target a certain number of residential waste loads that originated from within Roxboro and from the unincorporated area (as hauled by a private hauler), and classify those loads separately to generate a waste characterization of residential incorporated waste and residential unincorporated waste. The waste characterization study will include analysis of the single-stream recyclables that the Person County MRF receives (ie. residential, unincorporated, incorporated, commercial, etc). The waste characterization will also include multifamily waste, commercial waste and waste origin data.
4. On Page 2, in the Background section of the RFP, it states there is a contract and franchise agreement between the county and Republic Services for disposal. Can the County provide a signed copy of the document(s) at this time for proposers? View a copy of the agreement here.
5. On Page 4, Item 5 in the Evaluation Criteria and Process section, the RFP states: “Scores for each rating factor will be added together to obtain a total score for each proposal. Proposals will then be ranked from highest to lowest according to the total combined score. Person County may choose a single vendor or multiple vendors. Vendors may submit proposals addressing only one or some of the items listed in the Project Overview section, but they must explain how they intend to collaborate with other consultant(s) regarding the remaining items.”
It seems financially advantageous for the County to award the project to one vendor to reduce the overall cost of the project as work items in the project feed off each other, and this will also provide for a final report in a concise consistent format. Is it the County’s intent to award a contract to one vendor who may or may not have collaborators or is the County contemplating a break-up the entire project to multiple vendors, based on a cost per item? We will award the contract to the vendor(s) that scores the highest. We have no intent to award the contract to one vendor or to multiple vendors.
6. What is the overall timeframe for the County to have this project completed? The RFP requests that the consultant provide a timeline.
7. Is there an overall budget target for the total project or for portions of the project? The RFP requests that the consultant provide a cost estimate.
8. Are funds allocated for the execution of this project? If so, how much has been allocated? Yes. $100,000. Please be reminded that cost will be a factor as proposals are evaluated against each other.
9. In the Project Overview section (Page 2) of the RFP, Item 2 the assignment states “Recommended sites for future landfills, transfer stations and collection sites, including zoning”. This could include any number of locations in Person County and/or surrounding counties and communities.
a. Since doing site locations and screening (including zoning) could be expensive, does the County have specific landfill and transfer station sites in mind? The county has not identified potential locations. However, the old landfill is located on Cedar Grove Church Road (tax parcel # 16659). The old transfer station is also located at this property.
b. Could the County state the number of sites that the County feels, at a minimum, are required to be reviewed by the consultant to establish a competitive pricing structure? A change in the number can always be negotiated after selection. We expect the consultant to evaluate potential waste management system solutions and then recommend an appropriate system.
c. What does the County consider as collection sites? A drop-off location with dumpsters for waste and recycling.
10. In Appendix 1(Page 9), Option 3.b. mentions building a new transfer station/upgrading an existing transfer station and the County would need to obtain a new permit.
a. Where is the existing transfer located? Tax parcel record number: 16659, Cedar Grove Church Road, near Jack Brann Rd.
b. Why was the transfer station closed? It closed when Upper Piedmont Environmental landfill was opened.
c. When was the transfer station closed? 1999
11. Appendix 1 indicates extensive research has been conducted on three options for future solid waste management.
a. Can the County provide PDF copies of the previous studies at this time for prospective proposers? Extensive research refers to phone calls, data collection from the State, etc. There were no other documents created regarding solid waste management options.