STRATEGIC PLANNING AND
CONSULTANT SELECTION ASSISTANCE
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE
CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 1
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING • BOSTON, MA. 02203
-------
STRATEGIC Pt ANN INC AND
CONSULTANT SELECT ION ASSISTANCE
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE
CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Prepared for:
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I
John F. Kennedy Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Prepared By:
GORDIAN ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
1.919 Pennsylvania Avenue, M.W.
Suite 405
washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 828—7300
August, 1979
-------
Public Law 94—580 — Oct. 21, 1976
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION PANELS
Sec. 2003. The Administrator shall provide teams of personnal,
including Federal, State, and local employees or contractors (herein-
after referred to as “Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels”) to
provide Federal States and local governments upon request with technical
assistance on solid waste management, resource recovery, and resource
conservation. Such teams shall include technical, marketing, financial,
and institutional specialists, and the services of such teams shall be
provided without charge to States or local governments.
This report has been reviewed by the Region I EPA Technical Assistance
Project Officer, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commer—
cia ] . products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
EPA Region I Project Manager: Conrad 0. Desrosiers
-------
PEE PACE
This report presents a brief overview of the U.S. EPA Region I
“Panels” Team’s technical assistance efforts for the City of Burling-
ton, Vermont. The assistance provided Burlington with strategic direc-
tion, an implementation plan, and procedures for selecting a consultant
to conduct an in—depth feasibility study for a new solid waste manage-
ment system for the City, incorporating both a sanitary landfill and
resource recovery.
The body of the report outlines the events transpiring from
November, 1978, when the technical assistance efforts began, to August,
1979, when the City—consultant contract was made ready for signature.
The attachments provide working documents as well as discussions of the
project’s philosophy and strategy. The consultant selection procedure
and the documentation necessary to accomplish selection are also in-
cluded. They should be particularly useful to groups considering sim-
ilar efforts.
-------
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
November : Phase I site visit.
Phase I site visit Report submitted by Gordian.
December : Directive of Work for Phase II issued.
Scope of Work for Technical Asistance to the City of
Burlington finalized.
January : Draft Implementation Plan submitted by Gordian.
RFP prepared with Gordian ’s assistance.
February : Announcement of RFP.
March : Proposal Evaluation Methodology submitted by Gordian.
Deadline for receipt of consultant proposals.
April:
May:
June : Consultant selected.
July : Contract finalized.
August : Phase II Final Report submitted by Cordian.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following people were active participants in Burlington’s
Technical Assistance Team established by the U.S. Environmental Pro—
tectiori Agency.
City of Burlington, Vermont
James Ogden, Superintendent, Department of Streets
William Rockwell, Department of Streets
Vermont Agency for Environmental Conservation
Andre’ Rouleau
Alan Fillip
•United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ira Leighton, Region I
Conrad Desrosiers, Region I
Gordian Associates Incorporated
Harvey Gershman
Richard Baldwin
Dick Richards
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Chronology of Events
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
Burlington, Vermont Phase II Final Report 1
Introduction 1
velopment of an Implementation Plan 2
velopment of an R}T 2
Selection of a Consultant 3
Contract Negotiations 4
Concluding Remarks 5
ATTACBIIENTS
A. Memo: Harvey Gershman, Gordian Associates to Conrad
srosiers and Ira Leighton, EPA Region I, Nov. 17, 1978
B. Scope of Work, Burlington, Vermont Technical Assistance
C. Draft Implementation Plan —— Burlington Solid Waste
llanagement/Rssource Recovery Project
D. Request for Proposal for Feasibility Study of Solid
Waste Management Alternatives — Burlington, Vermont
E. List of Proposals Received with Respective Subcontractors
F. Evaluations of Proposals for Feasibility Study of Solid
Waste Management Alternatives —— Burlington, Vermont
G. Questions Re: Feasibility Study of Solid Waste
Management
H. Agreement Between City of Burlington and William F.
Cosulich Associates, P.C. for Professional Services
I. Letter from James K. Ogden, City of Burlington to
Conrad 0. Desrosiers, EPA Region I, August 2, 1979
-------
BURLINGTON VERMONT
PHASE II FINAL REPORT
INTRO WCTION
The City of Burlington, Vermont is undertaking the implementation
of a resource recovery system in order to realize a significant reduc—
1n its landfilflng requirements. Burlington’s current landfill
site is located in a flood plain area; thus, serious environmental.
problems make alternative approaches to solid waste disposal desirable.
The electorate has approved a $65 million bond issue which includes $10
million for this project. After the completion of an engineering con-
sultant’s study of resource recovery, the City was unsure as to how it
should proceed and requested assistance through the EPA Region I Tech—
n.ical Assistance Panels program.
Gordian personnel. conducted a Phase I site visit, during which a
meeting was held with City officials and representatives of. EPA Re-
gion I (Conrad Desrosiers) and the Vermont Agency for Environmental
Protection (Andrew Rouleau and A]. Fillip) in order to determine the
nature of assistance that Gordian should provide. The Phase I Site
Visit Report outlined a suggested approach for providing the necessary
assistance. This document is included as Attachment A.
The Scope of Work for Phase II technical assistance was developed
at subsequent meetings with the City, EPA Region I and the Vermont
Agency for Environmental Protection (AEP) on January 3 and 4, 1979.
The following tasks, to be accomplished by Gordian, were:
development of an implementation plan;
development of an R.FP (including a scope of work) for the
services of an engineering consultant to perform a detailed
feasibility study;
development of a methodology for selecting a consultant to
perform this study;
documentation of technical support provided; and
performance of other tasks as directed by EPA.
The Phase II Scope of Work is included as Attachment B.
-------
2
DEVELOPMENT OF AN U PLEMENTATION PLAN
The purpose of the Implementation Plan was to set out a step—by—
step procedure to carry the City of Burlington through each stage in
studying and planning a solid waste resource recovery system. If a
system is shown to be technically and economically feasible, then the
Implementation Plan will serve as a guide to its successful completion.
The Plan contains four elements:
• a statement of goals;
• a listing of steps to achieve these goals;
• a schedule for steps to be taken and key decisions to
to be made; and
• an estimate of expected costs to the City.
One feature of the Plan is a “dynamic” approach to the planning pro—
cess. At the completion of each step, it calls for the City to rede-
fine its goals and review the steps and decisions required to reach
them.
Gordian assisted the City of Burlington in defining the goals to
be achieved, and included a statement of these goals in the Imp lemen—
tation Plan. The Plan was then presented to the City’s elected off i—
cials by City staff, serving as a means to explain the staff’s plans
for proceeding with the project in an orderly manner.
As the next step in procuring a resource recovery project in
Burlington was the selection of an engineering consultant to perform
the feasibility study, the remainder of the Plan deals primarily with
the preparation of an RIP and scope of services to be performed by the
consultant. The draft Implementation Plan is included as Attach-
ment C.
DEVELOPMENT OF AN RIP
The nature of the request for proposals (RIP) issued for a feasi-
bility study of resource recovery can have considerable impact on the
selection of the consultant and thus the quality of the final study.
It is important that the RIP be written to give the respondents a clear
idea of what is expected in the proposal; therefore, specific instruc-
tions as to its format and content are highly desirable. A well—
conceived RIP will attract a larger number of quality proposals, and
will simplify the evaluation process since each proposal will address
the same topics. It will also assist the proposers in providing an
accurate estimate of the cost to perform the work envisioned by the
City.
-------
3
Gordian assisted the City in developing the RIP, concentrating
primarily on the scope of services to be provided to ensure that no
major work item was omitted. The document also provided an indication
of the budget deemed appropriate to accomplish the required efforts.
It divided the Feasibility Study work into three areas: engineering
related, management/institutional related, and joint efforts. This was
done to encourage consultant firms to form teams in order to provide
broader skills and capabilities than are usually found in an individual
consulting firm. A sample consultant’s contract was included, devel-
oped from a consultant contract for another ongoing city effort. The
contract was included so that respondents would be apprised of the
terms and conditions the City would require and to save the City pro-
cessing time by providing a contract that was familiar to the City’s
legal counsel. The resulting RIP (see Attachment D) poses the ques-
tions that must be answered by the feasibility study in order for the
City to make the correct decision on whether to implement resource re-
covery, and, if so, what kind of system to select.
• SELECTION OF A CONSULTANT
The City received 19 proposals in response to its RIP. A list of
the firms that made submissions and their subcontractors is shown in
Attachment E.
Gordian assisted the City of Burlington in the selection of a con-
sultant by developing a methodology for objectively evaluating the pro-
posals. This methodology allowed the City to judge the bidding firms’
proposals on experience and their ability to perform the work described
in the RIP. In addition, it provides a record of the selection process
in case unsuccessful proposers challenge the final choice of the con-
sultant.
The methodology employed has three steps:
I. Preliminary Screening and Elimination — to eliminate the least—
qualified proposals.
II. In-Depth Evaluation — to select firms for interviews on the
basis of their firm/personnel qualifications and their work
plans.
III. Interviews — to assist the City staff in making their final
selection.
The evaluation methodology is included as Attachment F.
Following the completion of Step II, Gordian assisted the City
during the consultant selection process by identifying areas in the
proposals that required clarification prior to the interviews and sug-
gesting questions that should be asked of the proposers during the in-
terviews. Cordian identified the following key points on which each
proposal should be evaluated:
-------
4
• work approach for refuse weighing,
• work approach for landfill analysis,
• suitability of staff for management and institutional
analysis,
• experience of project manager, and
• firm’s previous relevant experience.
In response to this, the City developed a list of key questions which
were used to generate discussion during the interviews with the final-
ists. This list of questions is included as Attachment C.
Three firms were selected for the Step III interviews:
• William F. Cosulich Associates, with
— Paine, Webber, Jackson, Curtis
— Environmental Laboratories Inc.,
• Metcalf and Eddy, with
— Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc.
— Bache, Halsey, Stuart, Shields, Inc., and
• Saunders & Thomas, Inc., with
— D. bois & King, Inc.
At the conclusion of the Step III interviews, the City staff still
felt somewhat uncertain about the responses and staffing proposed by
two of the three finalists. As a result, further conversations, and in
one case an additional interview, were held to obtain adequate answers
to the City staff’s concerns. As a result, the City of Burlington
chose William F. Cosulich Associates, Inc. as the prime consultant to
perform the feasibility study. The subcontractors in the Cosulich team
were included to perform the institutional, management, and laboratory
analyses.
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
The City of Burlington consulted Gordian during the negotiation of
its contract with William F. Cosulich Associates. The following were
the chief benefits of Cordian’s advice:
assurance that the contract is fair and will provide good
value to the City;
-------
5
• assurance that the contract contains no omissions or
oversights; and
• advice on what the City can reasonably demand of its
consultant.
Gordian also assisted in modifying the work plan as proposed by William
F. Cosulich Associates to include some additional. tasks and to clarify
others. A copy of the contract document is included as Attachment H.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The usefulness of the EPA Solid Waste Technical Assistance Panels
Program has been demonstrated through Gordian’s Phase II assistance to
the City of Burlington. This aid has enabled Burlington to move ahead
in planning a resource recovery system in a forthright and timely man-
ner. The assurance and direction that can be provided to local govern—
ments through the Panels Program will ease the implementation of energy
and/or materials recovery projects throughout the nation and greatly
increase their chances of success. A letter received from a City of-
ficial (Attachment I) illustrates the staff’s confidence in the Panels’
approach.
-------
ATrA 4ENT A
-------
MEMO
TO: Conrad DesrosierS, EPA Region 1
Ira Leighton, EPA Region 1
FROM: Harvey W. Gershman, Gordian Associates
DATE: November 17, 1978
RE: Burlington, Vermont Phase I Site Visit
(Gordian P/N 1143—7)
Background
In response to a request to perform a Phase 1 initial site visit in response
to a.request from the City of Burlington, Vermont, Gordian attended a meet-
ing in Burlington on November 15, 1978.
Burlington has high interest in implementing a starved—air steam/heat resource
recovery system. A site and bond issue ($10 million) have been approved.
Interest from an energy user is also present. Burlington has requested
assistance in preparing an scope of services for a consultant to undertake
a preliminary feasibility study.
Meeting in Burlington
In Attendance:
City of Burlington: Jim Ogden (Streets), Bob Young (Electric)
State of Vermont: Andy Rouleau, Al Fillip
EPA Region 1: Conrad Desrosiers
Gordian: Harvey Gershman
The discussion provided background as to the status of Burlington plans for
resource recovery. Both studies by a consultant and an HEW IEUS effort
provide useful background for future work. However, new information needs to
be obtained to analyze the combustion approach under consideration. There-
fore, the City has decided to have a consultant perform a preliminary feasi-
bility study to determine whether the project should proceed. Funding for
the study would come from bond anticipatory notes. (The City has referendum
approval for $10 million to undertake the project.)
Some thought was given to applying for Urban Grant funding. But due to
timeframe considerations, the City has decided not to apply.*
* Telephone conversation 11/16/78 with J. Ogden.
-------
—2—
The City expressed an interest and need for technical assistance to help
them get the consultant study scoped properly.
Recomendation for Phase 2 Assistance
Having funding and a site already approved for the project provides two large
hurdles already overcome. Key City staff in both the Streets and Electric
departments have a very positive attitude toward the project, but want to
make sure. the future Study efforts are properly structured to assure maining-
ful outputs. Phase 2 assistance is therefore recommended to assist the
City to develop a scope of work, select and contract with a consulting firm
and review consultant outputs during the course of their study.
-------
AITA EL1ENT B
-------
Contract No. 68—01—4940 Page 1 of 2
DOW No. 4 January 2, 1979
ATTACHMENT
SCOPE OF WORK
Burlington, Vermon
Technical Assistance
BACKGROUND
The City of Burlington, Vermont is ur dertakiflg the implementation
of a starved—air combustion steam/heat resource recovery system
to significantly reduce landfilling requirements. Their current
landfill site is located in a flood plain area. Serious environ-
mental problems make alternative approaches to solid waste dis-
posal desirable. Voter approval of a $10 million bond for the
project has passed. Additionally, a site adjacent to a new wood—
fired electric generating station (municipally owned and operated)
has been secured for the project. A possible cogeneratiOn
recovery approach therefore exists.
The City needs to develpp an appropriate consultant sc ope of work
and undertake a study to analyze the merits of the proposed proj-
ect. This effort is designed to assist the City in delineating
the events that require consideration in the future, developing a
scope of work for the consultant effort, and developing a system
for selection of the consultant. The Solid Waste Program of the
Vermont AEC will have an active part on all aspects of the Bur-
lington project.
TASK 1 — DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
(40 person—hours)
The Contractor shall assist the City in developing a plan to implE
ment a refuse to energy facility. The Contractor shall address
such issues as Project Goals, Areas of Study, Key Decisions and
Outside Assistance Requirements for the planning and procurement
stages of facility implementation. The Contractor shall develop
a timetable showing the overall picture of the implementation pro-
cess, i.e., where various inputs and decisions are due.
TASK 2 — SCOPE OF WORK DEVELOPME (56 person—hours)
The Contractor shall work closely with City staff in developing
a scope of work for consultant services to perform a detailed
feasibility study. Where possible, the Contractor shall provide
examples of similar requests for consultant services. The Con-
tractor shall also provide guidance on making qualified firms
aware of the Cities needs. The City will be responsible for
preparing the final scope of work and request for proposals.
-------
Contract No. 68-01—4940 Page 2 of 2
DOW No. 4 January 2, 1979
TASK 3 — CONSULTANT SELECTION (40 person—hours)
The Contractor shall assist the City in developing a checklist
for the evaluation of prospective bidders for consultant services.
During the consultant interview, proposal review, and contractor
phases, the Contractor shall provide the City with oral guidance
on procedural questions. The Contractor shall not be directly
involved in the above phases, nor recommend which firm(s) the
City should select.
TASK 4 — DOCUMENTATION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
(40 person—hours)
At the conclusion of this project, the Contractor shall prepare a
brief document describing the Technical Assistance provided. The
document shall include how the Implementation Plan and Scope of
Work for Consultant Services were developed, what were some of the
typical key questions that needed to be answered, and lessons
learned. The final Implementation Plan and Scope of Work shall be
attached for reference. The Contractor shall provide camera ready
copy.
TASK 5 — OTHER (32 person—hours)
The Contractor shall’ attend certain meetings at the direction of
EPA.
TIME SCHEDULE
The tasks are to be accomplished according to the following
guidelines.
TASK COMPLETED BY
1 January 16, 1979
2 February 5, 1979
3 May 1, 1979
4 May 15, 1979
5 As Required
Variations to the schedule will be made only by the EPA Project
Officer.
-------
ATTA E IENT C
-------
DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
BURLINGTON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT/RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT
Presented to:
Streets Department
City of Burlington, Vermont
Jim-Ogden, Project Manager
Presented by:
Gordian Associates Incorporated
910 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Suite 917
Washington, D.C. 20008
January 9, 1979
-------
BACKGROUND
This Draft Implementation Plan has been prepared for the City of
Burl ington as a result of discussions among officials of the City and
the Agency for Environmental Conservation, with assistance provided by
EPA Region I through its “Technical Assistance Panels” program. Tech-
nical assistance Is being provided to Burlington by Gordian Associates
Inc., Panels contractor in EPA Region I.
Personnel from Gordian have attended two meetings in Burlington,
on November 15, 1978 and on January 3 and .4, 1979. The details of the
Draft Plan as described herein were developed mainly during the latter
meeting. Please note that this briefing document presents the Imple-
mentation Plan as interpreted to date by Gordian Associates. As such,
it is a draft document for review by the Streets Department and the
Streets Comission.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Definition and Purpose
The purpose of this Implementation Plan is to set out a step-by-
step procedure to carry the City of Burlington through each stage in
studying and planning a solid waste resource recovery system. If such
a system is shown to be technically and economically feasible, then the
Implementation Plan will serve as a guide to its successful completion.
-------
2
The Plan contains the following four basic parts:
- A statement of goals,
— A listing of steps to achieve these goals,
— A schedule of work steps to be taken and key decisions to
be made, and
— An estimate of expected costs to the City.
More detail on these items is presented in the sections that follow. In
addition, this review version of the Plan includes a description of the
individual items recoimiended for study in the first work task of the
Plan, the proposed feasibility analysis.
Statement of Goals
Several goals have been stated for the Implementation Plan, as
follows:
1. Determine and implement a solid waste management method
to meet at least the needs of Burlington. If feasible,
waste from other comunities will also be included in
the City’s system.
2. Select the least-cost, feasible solid waste disposal
option, after comparing the two alternatives of land-
fill vs. resource/energy recovery.
3. Make a “go/no—go” decision regarding an energy recovery
system.
4. Develop specific reccrmiendations as to what to do next,
after a decision has been made between landfill and
energy recovery.
-------
3
Steps in the Implementation Plan
The Plan is based on the following action steps to be undertaken
either by the City or by consultants to the City. Because the City
stands at the beginning of the implementation process, only the first
few steps can be clearly described at this time. However, the Plan
should be updated and made more specific at the conclusion of each major
work item.
Step Action to be Taken
1. Accept Implementation Plan; commit necessary funds
for feasibility analysis . Because of the time re-
quired to secure funding authorization and to se-
lect a consultant, this step should be taken irn-
mediately.
2. Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct the
feasibility analysis . A sumãry of the RFP items
is included in this briefing document. Because
the RFP will be a complex document, it should be
prepared in rough form for review by the Commis-
sion. Gordian is preparing such a draft at this
time, for submission to the Streets Department by
January 15, 1979. At present, it is planned that
the RFP will be issued by February 1, with propo-
sals returned to the City about March 9, 1979.
3. Review proposals, select and contract with a con-
sultant . Allowing time for review and selection
-------
4
Step Action to be Taken
to take place and a contract to be signed, this
step should be completed by April 30, 1979.
A number of specific suggestions have been
made regarding the types of consulting assistance
required by the City. These are summarized in
the section describing the RFP.
4. Complete feasibility study, make a decision as to
landfill or resource recovery . It is anticipated
that the feasibility study will require about 3
to 4 months to complete. This step would be fin-
ished prior to October, 1979. The results of the
study will enable the City to decide whether land-
fill or energy recovery is preferred. In addition,
if resource recovery is recommended, the study
will indicate the specific technology, the most
feasible scale of operation, and a detailed pro-
gram for system implementation.
5. Determine needs for next step; commit funds for
detailed analysis . This step is virtually a re-
peat of step 1, except that the immediate objective
is to prepare a final design for the selected dis-
posal method. -
6. Issue RFP for detailed study; select and contract
with a consultant . Once again, this is a repeat
of steps 2 and 3, except that the object is a final
design.
-------
5
Schedule and Key Decisions
At this time, the implementation schedule can be projected only
through completion of the feasibility study. Decisions made at that
point will determine the time requirements of subsequent steps.
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE
Key Implementation Action Approximate
Decision or Milestone Date
Accept Initiate steps to commit January 9
Implementation funds
Plan
Draft REP delivered to January 15
Streets Department
Briefing to Streets Corn— January 23
mission; RFP reviewed
and finalized; pre-announce—
ment made
REP issued February 1
Proposal deadline March 9
Decide on Review proposals; set March 15 &16
“short list” “short list”
proposers
Interview “short list” March 20-28
Select Contractor selected April 1
contractor
Sign contract; issue April 30
notice to proceed
Feasibility study October ‘79
complete
-------
6
Estimated Cost to the City
At this stage, only the rough costs of the feasibility study can
be estimated. In our best judgement, the feasibility study can be ac-
complished for $80,000 to $100,000. As each stage of the implementation
process is completed, the cost of subsequent steps should be estimated.
-------
7
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
The first major step in implementation is to arrange for a feasi-
bility study of resource recovery vs. landfill. The following is a pre-
liminary list of the work areas to be covered in the feasibility study.
The list takes into account the data and analysis available through
the two previous studies of resource recovery In Burlington.* .It also
is based on the planning requirements set forth by EPA as part of the
President’s Urban Grant Program, so that the City will be able to use
the feasibility study as part of a future grant application is desired.
Feasibility Study Work Areas
Task 1. Update waste flow volume and composition studies for all
three area landfills . This analysis will provide data on waste flow
from all three area landfills. Important criteria include total weight;
composition; daily, monthly, and seasonal flow variations; and combus-
tibility. Projections would also be made of future waste flows. Since
data are presently recorded as volume estimates, a method will have to
be developed to convert to equivalent weights.
Task 2. Develcp a strategy for receiving the required waste sup-
ply (100 to 200 tons per day) . It is not necessary at this stage to
enter into agreements for a steady flow of waste to the Burlington pro-
ject. But this must be done before the project can be implemented.
* Community Application of Integrated Energy/Utility Systems , National
Bureau of Standards, ERDA, HEW, 1978.
Burlington, Vermont Refuse—Wood Power Plant/Aguaculture/Greenhouse ,
Henningson Durham & Richardson, 1977.
-------
8
Thus, this task will look at the relative advantages of different forms
of waste control.
Task 3. Technology review . Considering the results of the HDR
and I.E.U.S. studies, this review can be primarily restricted to starved-
air (modular) combustion. However, a brief look should be given to
other technologies appropriate to 200 TPD, including codisposal of refuse
and sewage sludge.
Task 4. Market Survey . Once again, the previous studies have iden-
tified UVM and the Medical Center as primary markets for steam and hot
water. However, a brief survey is in order to cover any other possibili-
ties, such as codisposal and the use of steam to dry incoming wood chips
for the proposed Burlington Light generating plant.
Task 5. Review compatability with other waste reduction programs .
An example of this is the State’s “bottle bill,” as well as any present
or future efforts in local paper or metals recovery.
Task 6. Analyze source separation as a part of the overall recovery
approach . For paper, metals, used oil, batteries and other items, source
separation may be attractive. The effect on waste composition and Btu
value should be examined.
Task 7. Evaluate environmental issues . All environmental studies,
permits, etc. should be identified, as well as the work required to com-
ply with them.
Task 8. Evaluate alternative landfill needs . This work area must
address two alternative possibilities: a) 100% landfill, no resource
or energy recovery; and b) energy recovery with the interim need for
-------
9
landfill space through the implementation period and the long term need
for bulky waste and residue disposal. Several subtasks would be involved:
Subtask A . Determine the availability and suitability Of
land for long term disposal of 100 TPD (no resource re-
covery).
Subtask B . Determine availability and suitability of land
for long term disposal of bulky items and residue from re-
source recovery.
Subtask C . Develop an interim disposal plan for the next
three or four years (during the implementation period).
Task 9. Estimate project costs and benefits . The economics of
landfill and resource recovery would be compared to see which is prefer-
red on the basis of net dollar costs. Non-monetary environmental values
(air and water pollution, energy issues) should also be considered.
Task 10. Review alternative procurement methods . If resource re-
covery is seen as more feasible, then a system can be purchased and con-
structed by either having an architect-engineer design a system for city
ownership and operation or by contracting with a system manufacturer to
construct, shakedown, operate and even own the facility. These two
approaches differ as to risk, cost, flexibility and ease of management.
Task 11. Investigate alternative financing methods . This work
item would not be extensive, since the City has authorized a $10.5
million bond issue. However, other financing methods exist and should
be briefly compared..
-------
SECTION 10. ARBITRATION
A].]. claims, disputes, and other matters in question between the
parties to this AGREEMENT, arising out of, or relating to, this
AGREEMENT or the breach thereof shall be decided by arbitration in
accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the
American Arbitration Association then obtaining. Any arbitration
is to be held in Burlington, Vermont, unless otherwise agreed upon
by the parties. Notice of the damand for arbitration shall be made
within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute, or other matter
in question has arisen. Unless both parties agree, no other party
may be joint in the arbitration. In no event shall the demand for
arbitration be made after the time when institution of legal or
equitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute, or other matter
in question would be barred by the applicable statute of limita-
tions. This agreement, so to arbitrate shall be specifically en-
forceable under the prevailing arbitration law. The award rendered
by the arbitrators shall be final and judgement may be entered upon
it in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
SECTION 11. GENERAL
11.]. This AGREEMENT represents the entire and. integrated AGREE-
MENT between (city) and (firm) and supersedes all prior..
negotiations, representations or agreements, either written
or oral. This AGREEMENT may be amended only by written
instrument signed by both and
11.2 In the event any provisions of this AGREEMENT shall be held
to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions
shall be valid and binding upon the parties. One or more
waivers by eithe’r party of any provision, term, condition
or covenant shall not be construed by the other party as a
- waiver of subsequent breach of the same by the other party.
11.3 (Firm) shall complete the various phases of the work within
the time mutually agreed but it is agreed that (firm) is
not responsible for delays oàcasioned by factors beyond its
control; nor by factors which could not reasonable have been
foreseen at the time this contract was prepared. This para-
graph is subject to the provisions of Section 5 of this
AGREEMENT.
11.4 (City), through its project representative, shall at all
times have access to (firm’s) work under this AGREEMENT.
(Firm) shall, as required, provide adequate facilities for
such access. In respect to reimbursable billing under
Section 4, a record of (firm’s) direct payroll expenses,
cost for outside professional services, utilized under this
AGREEMENT, and reimbursable expenses pertaining to this
AGREEMENT shall be made available to (city) personnel in
(firm’s) office upon reasonable notice at mutually conven-
ient times.
SECTION 12. NOTICES
-------
11 notice requests and authorizations provided ,for herein shall be
in writing and shall be delivered or mailed, addressed as follows:
To (city)
City of Burlington
To (firm)
or addressed to either party at such other address as such party
aha]J. hereafter furnish to the other party in writing. Each such
notice, request, or authorization shall be deemed to have been duly
given when so delivered, or mailed, when deposited in the mails,
registered, postage paid.
SECTION 13. GOVERNING LAW
This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Vermont.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, (city) and (firm) have caused this AGREEMENT to
be signed as of the day and year first written above.
By__________________
(f i rnt)
By___________________
(city)
-------
ArrAc rr E
-------
V £% Z £a .L .1. V . J.
1- The SNC Group (S Inginaster & Breyez..Inc. , New York)
2- Charles T. Main, Inc.
3— William A. Cosulich Associates, P.C.
Paine, Webber, Jackson, Curtis
Environmental Laboratories Inc. (Mount Vernon, N.Y)
4— Sanders & Thomas, Inc.
Dubois & King, Inc. (Randolph, VT)
5- The Mitre Corporation, MET! EK Division
6— Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation
Raltech
Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Lorb, Inc. (New York)
Sainuelson, Portnow, Lang & Miller, LTD (Burling on, Vt.)
Wapora (Washington, D.C)
7- Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc. (So. Burlington, Vt.)
Bache, Halsey, Stuart, Shields, Inc.
9- Camp Dresser & McKee
9— E.J. Flynn Engineers, Inc.
Ellers., Fanning, Oakley, Chester & Rice, Inc. (Memphis, TN.)
Paine, Webber, Jackson, Curtis
Price Waterhouse, Inc. (Seattle, WA.)
Thermo Electron Corporation, Energy Div. (Waltham, MA.)
10- R.W. Beck & Associates
11- Barton, Brown, Clyde & Loguidice, P.C.
Project Planning Associates
Kenneth A. Taylor, Inc., Mechanical Contractor (Syracuse, NY)
12- Systems Technology Corporation
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. (Pittsburgh, PA)
Paine, Webber, Jackson, Curtis
Desautels & Bergeron, Inc. (Burlington, VT)
13- RECON Systems, Inc.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Stone & Webster Managerne t Consultants, Inc.
Wehran Engineering Corp.
14- CE Maguire, Inc.
15— Franklin Associates, LTD
Black & Veatch
-------
PROPOSALS RECEIVED- Page 2
16— Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
ECODATA, Inc. (New York)
17— Gannett Fleming Corddry & Carpenter, Inc.
18— SCS Engineers
Paine, Webber, Jackson, Curtis
Marshfield Engineering Services (Marshfield, VT)
19— Charles Veizy Associates, Inc.
DSI Resource Systems Group, Inc.
Paul L . Geiringer & Associates, Inc.
-------
AT AC T P
-------
GORDIAN ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
9*0 SEvENTEENTH STREET. N. W.
SUITE 917
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006
(202) 4683990
March 14, 1979
Mr. James R. Ogden
Superintendent of Streets
P.O. Box 849
Burlington, Veri ont 05401
Dear Jim:
Enclosed is a complete set of evaluation documents. We have provided
enough copies for evaluating twenty proposals, with a review panel of
seven persons. In addition, copies of the package have been forwarded
to Andy Rouleau and Conrad Desrosiers.
I hope that the procedure is clear. It is detailed in some respects,
but in our experience a clear, detailed record of reviewIS a valuable
document to have on. hand if questions are ever asked.
If you have any questions, please contact me. Andy and Conrad are also
standing by to offer their advice. Meanwhile, I am available to come to
Burlington on several dates later in March, if this is desirable.
Sincerely yours,
Richard A. Baldwin
cc: Andy Rouleau, Vermont AEC
Conrad Desrosiers, EPA Region I
enclosures
RAB:ptm
-------
EVALUATIONS OF PROPOSALS’ FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY OF SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Introduction
The attached documents represent a procedure that can be used in
reviewing proposals received by the Burlington Streets Department for
the upcoming resource recovery feasibility study. The procedure was
developed by Region I, U.S. EPA through Gordian Associates Inc.
Gordian is EPA’s Technical Assistance contractor in Region I. In this
capacity, Gordian has also provided assistance in developing the feasibility
study Request for Proposal (RFP).
The evaluation procedure is in effect a suggested framework for
proposal review. It is based on a detailed, stepwise examination of each
proposal, using the requirements of the RFP as a guide and incorporating
the experience of Gordian Associates. Two points should be noted before
the formal process of review begins:
1. The procedure is a suggestion only. Gordian has not
seen the proposals received to date by the Streets
Department, nor does their assistance task include
the requirement to review the proposals. Therefore,
the procedure may well have to be modified in some
respects to suit the preferences of the review group.
2. Reviewing complex proposals is a time-consuming and
occasionally tedious job. However, it is important
to review each proposal against the same criteria
and to maintain a full record of the process of
-------
evaluation. The record is essential because un-
successful proposers may ask to have the reviewers’
judgments explained to them. In this case, or in
the event of an outright challenge, the detailed
record is an indispensable item.
It is Gordian’s hope that the procedure is self-exp.lanatory. We
feel that if followed, it will provide the review group with a sound
basis for selection of the best—qualified consultant team for the
Feasibility Study.
-------
PROCEDURE FOR PROPOSAL EVALUATION
The procedures for this evaluation are based on looking into each
proposal for information that was required explicitly in the Request for
Proposal (RFP). If the information referred to by the evaluation
procedures does not appear reasonably clearly in the proposal, this is an
indication of a poorly prepared proposal and it should be evaluated
accordingly. We strongly urge that each reviewer study the RFP prior to
reviewing any proposals.
In brief, the procedure calls for an evaluation of proposals in three
steps:
I. Preliminary Screening and Elimination
The purpose of this step is to eliminate the least
qualified proposals. A small number of proposals
(6-10) from the most qualified firms/teams will be
retained for Step II. The evaluation in Step I
focuses on qualifications of the proposing firms
and their personnel.
II. In—Depth Evaluation
Step II is designed to evaluate the 6 to 10 remaining
proposals in detail on the basis of a) their firm/
personnel qualifications and b) their work plans. The
output of this step will be a numerical ranking of these
proposals, plus some qualitative data describing each
proposal. Using this ranking finalists can be chosen
for interviews.
-------
III. Interviews
The finalists are to be interviewed by the review
board to determine, in conjunction with the detailed
Step II evaluation, which firm is best able to
perform the feasibility study for the City of
Burlington.
-------
I. PRELIMINARY SCREENING AND ELIMINATION
In view of the number of proposals received for the
feasibility study, it does not seem practical for
each reviewer to look at all of the proposals in the
preliminary screening. For this reason, Gordian suggests
that the proposals be divided up among the reviewers so
that the work load of each reviewer is manageable, but
also in such a way that each proposal is evaluated by a
minimum of three (3) persons. We also suggest, however,
that one reviewer screen all of the proposals if the
time is available. This person’s review would con-
stitute a worthwhile “control” in the preliminary
screening.
The purpose 0 f the preliminary screening is primarily
to eliminate the least qualified proposals. In Gordian’s
experience, the qualifications of a firm and its
personnel provide the best information on which to make
an initial judgment of the probable performance of a firm
on any given project. Thus the step I screening is based
on these criteria.
-------
Using the worksheets provided with this package,
the reviewer should follow the procedures suggested
below in reviewing experience and qualifications.
Where required, rank the indicated criteria on
a 0—3 scale (3 = excellent, 2 = good, 1 = fair,
o = inadequate). The use of a numerical system
is suggested as an aid to ranking each proposal
relative to all others examined by the reviewers.
1. Letter of Transmittal . The letter of transmittal
must contain certification that the bidder’s work
plan can be accomplished within the resources
allocated for the study ($80,000). If this
certification is absent, the proposal is
automatically disqualified according to the terms
of the RFP. Record the answer on the worksheet.
2. Staffing and Manpower Allocation . Turn to section
2b of the proposal. Rate on the 0 to 3 scale the
bidder’s allocation of staff to a) the Engineering
Evaluation b) and the Management/Institutional
components of the study. Record on worksheet
Ratings should generally reflect the following
considerations:
• Sufficient numbers of staff - separate assignments
could be made for project management; management
of the two major task areas; field work; the
technical engineering and cost estimating; the
market study; and the financial analysis.
-------
• Clarity of management relationships — if two
or more firms are teamed does the proposed
management structure appear to ensure control
over work progress, budget and final products?
• Separation of task areas — to a great degree,
separate staff should be shown for the two
work areas. This helps to ensure that neither
the engineering or the management viewpoint
is overly dominant.
3. Qualifications of Personnel. Read the resumes (section 3a)
and study the job/personnel matrix (section 3b) and the
suimiary of total manpower resources (section 3c).
a) Rate (0-3) the qualifications of the engineering staff
to carry out the Engineering Evaluation tasks. Staff
should be familiar with: resource recovery (including
energy and materials recovery, codisposal, source
separation); landfill siting, design, and operation;
environmental impact assessment; permit requirements;
engineering economic analysis. Record on worksheet.
b) Rate (0—3) the qualifications of the staff to carry
out the Management/Institutional Analysis. Staff
should be familiar with: market surveys; procurement;
financing; procurement/contracting laws; legal issues
associated with waste stream ownership. Record on
worksheet.
-------
4. Experience of Firm(s )
Read section 4a, which should describe the firm(s) wofk
history.
a) Rate the engineering experience of the firm(s)
.which would be applicable to performing the
Engineering Evaluation. Obviously, the more
relevant experience a firm has, the better its
qualifications provided that the staff shown in
the proposed actually worked on the prior
projects listed.
b) Rate the experience of the firm(s) which would
be applicable to performing the Management!
Institutional Analysis.
5. General Impressions . On the basis of information already
read and that in sections 4b, 5 and 6 in the RFP, the
reviewer should rate the proposal (0 to 3) according to
his general impression of the firm(s) ability to perform
the study. Neatness counts; a proposal that is carelessly
prepared is a sign the work may not be carefully done.
6. Proposal Ranking . The reviewer should total the points
scored for each proposal and arrange his proposals in
order of merit and enter them on the Step I results sheet.
7. Selection for Step II . The top two choices of each
reviewer will be selected automatically for Step II.
If the total number selected falls short of the desired
number for Step II evaluation, the reviewing comittee
may select an appropriate number of third-ranked proposals
by mutual agreement.
-------
II. In-Depth Evaluation
Step I should have reduced the number of proposals for
further consideration to a manageable few. The Step II
evaluation will consider the Firm Experience and
Personnel Qualifications in greater detail as well as
the. Work Plan.
Using the Step II Evaluation Worksheet, each reviewer
should rate all of the remaining proposals according
to the following instructions. In addition, the
reviewer should make any comments/observations regarding
a proposal that he feels were not adequately addressed
by the quantitative evaluation procedure. These
comments should be entered on the Step II Coments
sheet. The reviewer should also use this sheet to note
any questions that he would like to ask the bidders
should they be selected for interviews.
(.1) Staffing and Manpower Allocation
a) Rate (0—3) the allocation of manpower on
the basis of the total number of man-hours
provided and the proportion allocated to
senior personnel. Gordian estimates that
the total number of man-hours should range
between 2500-3000 and that a minimum of
30% of these man-hours should be allocated
to senior personnel.
-------
b) Rate (0—3) the proposal according to
its allocation of hours to the various
tasks. Gordian considers a proper
allocation to be:
A. Engineering Evaluation: 55 — 70%
B. Management/InSitutioflal
Analysis: 15 — 25%
C. Joint Tasks: 15 - 20%
(2) Qualifications of Personnel
Read the resumes (Section 3a), the job!
personnel matrix (Section 3b) and the
sun nary of total manpower resources
(Section 3c).
a) Rate the qualifications of the engineering
staff to carry out the Engineering staff to
carry out the Engineering Evaluation. Staff
should be familiar* with: resource recovery
(including energy and materials recovery,
codisposal, source separation); landfill
siting design, and operation; environmental
impact assessment; permit requirements;
engineering economic analysis. (0—3)
* Preferably through direct experience in prior projects.
-------
b) Rate the qualifications of the gaff to
carry out the Management/Institutional
Analysis. Staff should be familiar with:-
market surveys; procurement; financing;
procurement/contracting laws; legal issues
associated with waste stream ownership. (0—3)
c) Rate the qualification of the Project
Manager. (0-3)
d) Rate the qualifications of manager of the
Engineering Evaluation. (Th.is person may
be the Project Manager: if so, rate
according to qualifications to lead
Engineering Evaluation rather than on
project management skills). (0—3)
e) Rate the qualification of manager of
Management/Institutional Analysis. (This
person may be the Project Manager: if so,
rate according to qualifications to lead
this analysis rather than on project
management skills). (0-3)
4. Experience of Firm(s )
Read section 4a which describes the firm(s) work
history.
a) Rate the engineering experience of the firm(s)
which would be applicable to performing the
Engineering Evaluation. (0-3)
-------
b) Rate the experience of.the firm(s) which would
be applicable to performing the Management/
Institutional Analysis. (0—3)
c) Rate (0-3) the quality of the facilities
available to firm. This should include consideration
of:
• laboratory facilities available to firm(s)
for performing waste flow analysis;
• availability of local offices and/or other
facilities which will be useful in the
feasibility study.
4. Statement of Financial Data of Firm(s )
Read Section 5 of proposal. Rate the financial
condition of the firm(s). (0—3)
B. Work Plan
1) Engineering Evaluation
a) Task 1: Waste Generation Study
• Permission and Insurance .
Rate the awareness of the proposer
regarding obtaining permission for
entry onto landfill sites and
insurance related to field staff
working at landfill sites. (0—3)
• Sampling .
Rate the proposed technique for obtaining
representative samples of solid waste.
-------
• Volume Corwersions . Rate the methodology
for conversion of landfill records and
data from volume to weight. This
methodology should make a distinction
between packed and unpacked solid waste.
• Waste flow projections . Rate the quality of
data sources which will be used to project
service area population and waste flow to
2005. Population projections are available
from local planning agencies.
f Solid Waste Analysis . Rate the comprehensiveness
of solid waste composition analysis. This
analysis should quantify:
- gross composition (i.e. residential,
comerical, construction debris, etc.);
— Source of waste (i.e. contribution from
each town);
- specific composition (e.g. ferrous metals,
aluminum, other non—ferrous metals, glass,
paper, cardboard, plastics, combustibles,
non-combustibles, etc.);
- waste characteristics (e.g. moisture content;
BT1J content).
— seasonal variation.
-------
b) Task 2: Technology Review
Rate the response of the proposal to the aspects of the
technology review indicated below. The proposal should
not appear to favor any particular technology or product.
O List of technologies . This should include:
incineration; landfill; codisposal, composting
(Do not rate this list by its length - many
technologies that may be listed are not necessarily
appropriate for 100-200 TPD). (0-3)
• Codisposal . This should address co-composting and
co —landfilling; as well as thermal methods of
codisposal (RDF in multiple-hearth or fluid-bed
furnaces; use of waste-derived steam for sludge
drying). (0—3)
• State and Federal Regulations . The proposal should
portray an awareness of the planning and permit
regulations of the State of Vermont and the U.S. EPA.
(State experience should be rated favorably). (0-3)
c) Task 3. Compatibility with Waste Reduction
and or Source Separation
Rate proposal according to familiarity with subject
area indicated in response. A good proposal will show
awareness 0 f the potential for other efforts to reduce
the viability of a heat recovery scheme. Should be
familiar with any current local or state efforts. (0-3)
-------
d) Task 4: Environmental Issues
Rate proposal according to familiarity with
subject area indicated in response. The
proposal should address such issues as:
groundwater pollution from landfill operations;
air pollution control; aethetics; site planning
issues; right—of-way for steam line and
environmental impact statement preparation. (0-3)
e) Task 5: Evaluate Landfill Needs (0-3)
Rate according to quality of response. Response
should include:
• methodology for locating potential landfill sites;
• methodology for estimating landfill size (area)
and life;
• discussion of implications of RCRA (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) on
landfill disposal.
f) Task 6: Estimate Project Costs and Benefits (0-3)
Rate according to qualify of response. Response
should include:
• a discussion of separate cost items to be
estimated;
• a discussion of criteria for feasibility;
• i.nput from financial analysis and market study.
-------
3) Management/Institutional Analysis
a) Task 1: Securing Waste Stream (0—3)
Rate proposal according to familiarity with
subject area. Problems can arise in dealing with
landfill operators; other communi ties, private
haulers, limits on municipal- authority, etc.
Proposer should be aware of recent court action
in this area, such as the Akron case. Methods
of control include:
• declaring municipal ownership of waste;
• controlling disposal by permit authority;
• control by financial incentives (lower
tipping fee).
Proposer should appear to know how to
select the best approach and how to
implement it.
b) Task 2: Market Survey (0—3)
Rate according to quality of response.
Response should include discussion of:
• problems of coordinating energy recovery
with the Burlington Electric Department’s
wood-fired generation plant;
• contract provisions for agreement with
energy users;
e technical requirements of steam users;
-------
• the merits of hot water as compared to
steam;
• seasonality of demand.
c) Task 3. Procurement Methods (0—3)
Rate according to quality of response.
Response should discuss advantages/
disadvantages associated with alternative
procurement methods.
• methods include “A_E”*, “Turnkey” and “Full Service”;
• Should not appear to favor any method.
d) Task 4. Financing Methods (0-3)
Rate according to quality of discussion
regarding alternative financing methods.
Proposer should be aware that Burlington may
wish to use this feasibility study to apply
for a Phase II Urban Grant from EPA. (This was
not mentioned in the RFP. If the proposal
includes this idea, it should be rated as a plus).
e) Task 5. Review Contracting/Financing Laws (0—3)
Rate according to quality of response regarding
potential legal barriers that would hinder the
implementation of resource/energy recovery.
Proposer should be familiar with such items as:
• limitations to Burlington’s authority to
enter into longterm agreements;
* A—E refers to architect-engineer, meaning that the facility would be
designed by an engineering firm and assembled on site using equipment
from various manufacturers.
-------
• limits of municipal authority in controlling
waste stream (see 3(a) above);
• potential legal issues in diverting flow from
private landfills;
• potential legal issues in dealing with private
haulers.
Step II Rankings
Each reviewer should add up the points for Section A (Firm/Personnel
Qualifications) and Section B (Work Plan) separately and enter the two
scores into the Step II Reviewer Worksheet. In order to weight the total
Step II score in favor the Firm/Personnel Qualifications (which Gordian
believes to be the best indicator of a firm’s ability), the score for
Section A should be multiplied by 3. The reviewer’s Step II score is
obtained by adding the adjusted score for Section A to that of Section B.
Each viewer’s totals should be tabulated on the Step II Results
Worksheet and the scores added for each proposal. The sum of each reviewer’s
total score should be used to rank the proposals according to merit.
The proposals should then be entered onto the Step II Evaluation
Results Worksheet according to rank. The Review Board will discuss the
comments on each reviewer’s Step II comments sheet and may decide to make
comments (in the column provided) on the distinguishing characteristic(s)
a proposal which they feel should be taken into consideration in selecting
the Finalists.
-------
III. Interviews
The purpose of the interviews is to provide an opportunity for the
Review Board to make a first-hand assessment of the ability of each
finalist, and, also, to ask any questions that are needed to expand or
clarify the proposal.
The Reviewers should use the Interview Review Worksheets to make
comments on each of the finalists regarding the criteria indicated. The
Reviewer should then rank the finalists by merit on the basis of the
interview.
The results of the Presentation Review should be recorded on the
Interview Evaluation Results Worksheet. Each finalist is awarded points
for the ranking of each reviewer (i.e. where there are 3 finalists the
following points would be awarded: 3 points for each first-place ranking,
2 points for each second-place ranking, and 1 point for each third-place
ranking). The finalists can be ranked by their point totals.
IV. Selection of Winning Proposal
The methodology presented here will produce two sets of rankings:
one on the merits of the proposals and the other on the interviews. Also,
it will result in a number of comments on each of the finalists regarding
their ability and suitability to perform the Feasibility Study. Gordian
feels that this informa.tion should be sufficient for the Review Board
in order to select the best proposal from the finalists.
-------
PROPOSAL NAME OF REV JEWER
STEP I EVALUATION WORKSHEET*
1) Letter of Transmittal:
Certification regarding budget (yes/no):
2) Staffing and Manpower Allocation
a) Engineering Evaluation (0—3)
b) Management/Institutional Analysis (0—3)
3) Qualifications of Personnel
a) Qualifications of Staff for Engineering
Evaluation (0—3)
b) Qualifications of Staff for Management/
Institutional Analysis (0-3)
4) Experience of Firm(s)
a) Engineering Experience (0-3)
b) Management/Institutional Experience (0-3)
5) General Impressions (0—3)
TOTAL . . .
* See text of instructions for guidance regarding what to look for
under each heading.
-------
STEP I RESULTS
NAME OF REVIEWER
RANK PROPOSAL -
-------
PROPOSAL NAME OF REVIEWER
STEP II EVALUATION WORKSHEET*
A. Firm/Personnel Qualifications
1) Staffing and Manpower Allocation
a) Total Man—Hours/Allocation of Senior Staff (0—3)
b) Manpower Allocation to Tasks (0-3)
2) Qualifications of Personnel
a) Qualifications of Engineering Evaluation
Staff(O—3)
b) Qualifications of Management/Institutional
AnalysisStaff(O-3)
c) Qualifications of Project Manager (0-3) .
d) Qualifications of Manager of Engineering
Evaluation (0—3) .
e) Qualifications of Manager of Management/
Institutional Analysis (0-3)
3) Experience of Firm(s )
a) Engineering experience of firm(s) (0-3) . .
b) Management/Insti tutional experience
of firm(s) (0—3) . .
c) Quality of Facilities (0-3)
4) Statement 0 f Financial Data of Finn(s)(O-3) . . .
Section A TOTAL:
* See text of instructions for guidance regarding what to look for under
each heading.
-------
2
B. Work Plan
1) Engineering Evaluation
a) Task 1: Waste Generation Study
• Permission and Insurance (0—3)
• Sampling (0—3)
- . Volume Conversion (0-3)
• Waste Flow Projections (0—3) . .
• Solid Waste Analysis (0-3)
b) Task 2: Technology Review
• List of technologies (0-3)
• Codisposal (0-3)
• State and Federal Regulations (0-3) .
c) Task 3: Compatibility with Waste Reduction
and/or Source Separation (0-3)
d) Task 4: Environmental Issues (0-3)
e) Task 5: Evaluate Landfill Needs (0-3) . .
f) Task 6: Estimate Project Cost and
Benefits (0-3)
2) Management/Institutional Analysis
a) Task 1: Securing Waste Stream (0—3) . . . . .
b) Task 2: Market Survey (0—3)
c) Task 3: Procurement Methods (0-3)
d) Task 4: Financing Methods (0—3)
e) Task 5: Review Contracting/Financing Laws (0-3)
Section B TOTAL:
-------
STEP II COMMENTS
COMMENTS
NAME OF REVIEWER
-------
NAME OF REVIEWER
STEP II REVIEWER WORKSHEET
SCORE FOR
ADJUSTED
SCORE
FOR
TOTAL
SCORE FOR
PROPOSAL
SECTION
(a)
A*
SECTION A*
(3 x a)
SECTION
(b)
B**
SCORE
(a + b)
* Firm/Personnel Qualifications
** Work Plan
-------
STEP 11 RESULTS WORKSHEET
INDIVIDUAL REVIEWER TOTALS
TOTAL
RANK.
SCORE
SAL
1
—
-------
STEP II EVALUATION RESULTS
RANK
PROPOSAL
COMMENTS
INTERVIEW
I
2
— 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-------
PROPOSAL NAME OF REVIEWER
INTERVIEW WORKSHEET
REVIEW
CATEGORI ES
COMMENTS
QUALITY OF
PRESENTATION
STAFF EXPERIENCE
AND
CAPABILITI ES.
LOGIC OF
WORK PLAN/APPROACH
BELIEVABILITY
OF
PRES ENTERS
-------
ATTA EMENT G
-------
QUESTIONS — RE: FEASIBILITY STUDY O SOLID WASTE 1 EMEIT
1. WOULD YOU PLEASE ELABORATE ON YOUR FIRMS EXPERIENCE PE
GARDING THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF SMALL. . MODWLAR
IINCINERATOR SYSTEMS, COMMENTING ON THE MAJOR PROBLEMS YOU
HAVE ENCOUNTERED AND POSSI-BLE INNOVATIVE SOLUTIO APPLIED?
2. REGARDING SMALL MODULAR INCINERATOR SYSTEMS:
A. WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON THE USE OF STEAM VERSUS HOT
WATER AS THE FINAL FORM OF MARKETABLE ENERGY? MAJOR
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH?
B. WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON THE USE OF CONTINUOUS VERSUS
BATCH FEED TYPE SYSTEMS? PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH?
C. HAS YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH MODULAR INCINERATOR SYSTEMS
SHO IN A PARTICULAR OPERATING TEMPERATURE RANGE TO BE
PREFERABLE IN RELATION TO MINIMIZING 0 P. M COSTS AND
PROBLEMS IN GENERAL?
3. WHAT TYPES OF “RESOURCE PEOPLE” DOES YOUR FIRM HAVE
ACCESS TO FOR DEALING WITH SPECIAL PROBLEMS PARTICULAR
TO SMALL INCINERATION SYSTEMS?
ii. How MUCH EMPHASIS DO YOU FEEL SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE
ITEM OF TECHNOLOGY REVIEW? (I.E. TIME 9 EFFORT IN-
VOLVED IN THE RESEARCH OF DIFFERENT ENERGY PRODUCING
SYSTEMS APPLICABLE TO BURLINGTON’S SITUATION)
-------
5. How MUCH EMPHASIS O YOU FEEL SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE
WASTE QUANTITIES AND COMPOSITION ANALYSIS? (I.E.
WEIGHING AND SAMPLING AT LOCAL LANDFILLS). WHA1,
METHODS (TECHNIcWES) IN PARTICULAR HAVE YOU FOUND
HELPFUL IN THE PAST IN ESTIMATING SEASONAL VARIATIONS
AND POSSIBLE PECULIAR WASTE CHARACTERISTICS?
f . IN LIGHT OF INFORMATION PRESENTED. IN THE 1q78 !1ATIONAL
WASTE PROCESSING CONFERENCE (ENERGY CONSERVATION THROUGH
WASTE UTILIZATION, SME SOLID WASTE DIVISION) REGARDING
THE LARGE NUMBERS OF INCINERATING PROJECTS SHUT DOWN
DUE TO POLLUTION DROBLEMS, WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS REGARDING
PROVISIONS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL ABOVE AND BEYOND
DRESENT EPA STANDARDS? (MARGIN OF SAFETY?)
7. WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS REGARDING PRIVATE VERSUS MUNICIPAL
FINANCING OF PROJECTS OF THIS NATURE, ESPECIALLY IN
RELATION TO THE LONGTERM 0 M OF THE FACILITY?
PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED? HOW DEALT WITH?
8. HAVE YOU HAD EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH PROBLEMS RELATED
TO COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO SUCH PROJECTS? HOW WERE
THEY HANDLED?
HAVE YOU FOUND THE METHOD OF FINANCING HAS MUCH BEAR-
ING ON PROBLEMS OF THIS TYPE?
9. WHAT ARE YOUR VIE IS ON PROVIDING “BACK-UP” SYSTEMS TO
SUPPLY ENERGY TO MAJOR USERS DURING EMERGENCIES OR
PERIODS OF INSUFFICIENT SOLID WASTE FLOWS? PROBLEMS
INVOLVED? (FROM PAST EXPERIENCES?)
-------
AXTA HMENT E
-------
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF BURLINGTON
AND
WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C.
FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This AGREEMENT is made as of this __________day of_______
1979 by and between the City of Burlington with offices at
City Hall, Burlington, Vermont 05401, hereinafter called
(City), and William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C., a pro-
fessional corporation with offices at 100 Crossways Park
west, Woodbury, New York 11797 hereinafter called (Firm).
(City) proposes to perform a feasibility study hereinafter
called (Study) and (City) desires (Firm) to perform certain
professional services with respect to the (Study), al]. as
more fully described hereinafter.
SECTION 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY
The scope of the project is as described in (City’s)
Request For Proposal, attached as “Exhibit A” and made a
part of this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 2. (FIRM’S) RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 (Firm) shall furnish Professional Services for the
(Study) as described in Scope of Basic Contract
Services attached as “Exhibit B” and made a part
of this AGREEMENT.
2.2 (Firm) hereby designates Miro Dvirka as Principal
• in charge and William C. Miller as Project Manager,
to be fully responsible for the (Study) and to
maintain regular contact with the (City) and its
designated representatives.
I’
—1—
-------
2.3 (Firm) shall staff the (Study) scope of services
with such key personnel described under Staffing
and Manpower Allocation Estimate, attached as
“Exhibit C” and made a part of this AGREEMENT.
In the event the (Firm) finds it necessary to
substitute for any of the key personnel described
under “Exhibit C” such substitute shall be an
employee of equal qualifications.
SECTION 3. (CITY’S) RESPONSIBILITIES
(City) shall:
3.1 Provide all criteria and full information as to his
requirements for the (Study).
3.2 Assist (Eirm) by placing at his disposal all avail-
able information pertinent to the (Study) including
previous reports and other data relating to the
(Study).
3.3 Furnish (Firm) property boundary, R.O.W., topographi-
cal and existing utility surveys; zoning and deed
reports; and other existing data on file or con-
sultations not provided under this AGREEMENT; all.
of which (Firm) may rely upon in performing services
under this AGREEMENT.
3.4 Designate in writing persons to act as (City’s)
Representative and alternate with respect to the
work to be performed under this AGREEMENT; and such
person shall act asliai.son between (.City) and (Firm)
and shall have complete author .ty to transmit in—
structiC r.S, interpret and define (City’s) policies
—2—
-------
and decisions with respect to materials, equipment
elements, and systems pertinent to the services
covered by this AGREEMENT.
3 • 5 Give prompt written notice to (Firm) whenever (City)
observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in
the (Study).
3.6 Bear all costs incident to compliance with the re-
quirements of this Section.
SECTION 4. PAYMENT TO (FIRM)
4.]. The total contract price for the Scope of Basic
Contract Services is a lump suns of EIGHTY THOUSAND
Dollars. ($80,000.00). However, (City) shall pay
(Firm) on the following basis:
4.1.1 Payment Schedule:
A. ENGINEERING EVALUATION TASKS
____ _______ DESCRIPTION ______
VZRIFI ! bLID WASTE
QUANTITIES AND CHARACTERIS-
TICS
LA COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS
OF EXISTING DATA
13 COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS
OF NEW DATA
1C DATA PRO .7ECT IONS
ESTIMATE SOLID WASTE
QUANTITIES AVAIL?BLE OUT-
SIDE THE CITY
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
2A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF
PREVIOUS STUDIES
2B IDENTIFICATION OF MA3OR
ENERGY MARKET NEEDS
2C INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
OP APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES
TASK SUBTASK
2.
2
AMOUNT
$ 2,500.—
18 .500.—
1 ,000.—
1,000.—’
1,500.—
2,000.—
2,500.—
—3—
I.
-------
TASIC StJBTASE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT $1,000.-
OP NON-APPLICABLE TECH-
NOLOGIES
3 REVIEW PROGRAM COMPATIBILITY
WITH OTHER WASTE REDUCTION
MID/OR SOURCE SEPARATION
PROGRAMS
3A ASSESS IMPACT OP STATE 1,000. -
BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT
LAW
3B ASSESS IMPACT OF OTHER WASTE 1,000.
REDUCTION AND/OR SOURCE
SEPARATION STRATEGIES
4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES
4A IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED 1,500.-
PERMITS AND PROCEDURES
43 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 1,000.-
ISSUES
4C .ASSESS IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 1,000.-
ISSUES ON PROGRAM IMPLEMENTA
TION
5 EVALUATION OF LANDP ILL REQUIRE-
MENTS
SA ASSESS EXISTING LANDFILLS 2,000.-
WITHIN CITY
SB IDENTIFY POTENTIAL LANDFILL 2,000.-
SITES OUTSIDE CITY
5C IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE LONG 1,500.-
TERM LANDFILL NEEDS
5D IDENTIFY INTERIM LANDFILL 1,500.-
NEEDS
6 COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
6A DEVELOP CAPITAL AND 2,000.-
RECURRING COSTS FOR
ALTERNATIVES
6B DEVELOP AND ASSESS NON— 1,000.
ECONOMIC CONS IDERATIONS
6C ANALYSIS OF COST/BENEFIT 1,000.-
ALTERNATIVES
—4—
I.
-------
a. 1M1AGE i ’r/INsTITUTIoN EVALUATION TASKS
TASK SUBTASK DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
DEVELOPMENT OF WASTE
SUPPLY STRATEGY
1A IDENTIFICATION OP SOLID WASTE $1,000.-
HAULERS WITHIN REGION TO BE
SERVED
lB CHARACTERIZE VIABLE WASTE 500.-
SUPPLY CONTROL TECHNIQUES
2 MARKET SURVEY
2A IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT 2,500.-
OF POTENTIAL MARI TS
2B ASSESSMENT OP INTERACTION 1,000.-
WITH BURLINGTON ELECTRIC
DEPARTMENT
2C ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC IMPACT 500.-
ON RESIDUE HAUL ALTERNATIVES
2D DETERMINE OPTIMUM RESOURCE 500.-
RECOVERY STRATEGY
3 ‘IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
OF ALTERNATIVE PROCURVIENT
METHODS
3A IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS 500.-
OP RISKS
3B QUANTIFICATION OF RISK COSTS 500.-
3C ASSESSMENT OF RISK ALLOCATION 500.-
3D EVALUATION SUMMARY OP RISKS 500.-
4 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
OF ALTERNATIVE FINANCING
METHODS
4A IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE 500. -
FINANCING METHODS
4B DEV OPMENT OP EVALUATIVE 500. -
CRITERIA FOR OWNERSHIP AND
OPE RAT ION ALTERNATIVES
4C IDENTIFICATION OF FINANCING 500. -
RISKS
4D QUANTIFICATION OF COSTS FOR 500. -
P INANC ING ALTERNATIVES
4E QUANTIFICATION OF TAX BENEFITS 500. -
FOR FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
—5—
! 1
-------
TASK SV3TASK DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
4? IDENTIFICATION OF INTERIM $ 500.—
FINANCING METHODS
4G COz’ ILATION OF FINANCING 500.—
METHODS UTILIZED ON OTHER
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS
4B IDENTIFICATION 0? ALTERNA- 500.
TIVE FINANCING METHODS
CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS
41 DEVELOPMENT OF FINANCING 500.-
MODEL AND PLAN
4J TASK REPORT 1,000.-
5 REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
OF PROCTJBEMENT/CONTRACT INC
LAWS
5A REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF 1,500.-
APPLICABLE STATE LAWS
SB IDENTIFICATION OF CITY’S 1,000.-
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
5C IDENTIFICATION OP POTENTIAL 500.-
PROCUREMENT LEGAL CONSTRAINTS
5D IDENTIFICATION OF STRAGEGIES 500.-
TO RESOLVE LEGAL CONSTRAINTS
SE RANKING OP PROCUREMENT 500.-
ALTERNATIVES
C. JOINT TASKS
TASK SUBTASK DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
BRIEFINGS AND COORDINATION $7,000.-
MEETINGS
2 DRAFT AND FINAL REPORTS
2A DRAFT FINAL REPORT 3,000.
2B DECISIONMAXER’S WORKSHOP 2.000. -
2C FINAL REPORT 2,000.
3 DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2,000. -
TOTAL BASIC SERVICES CONTRACT PRICE = $80,000.-
4.1.2 Total Contract Price, for Basic Contract Services
is based upon the Scope of Basic Contract Services
as outlined in “Exhibit B.”
4.1.3 Terms of payment for Basic Contract Services:
4.1.3.1 Every four weeks (firm shall furnish and deliver to
(City) a statement in writing which sets forth the
amount due to (Firm) from (City) for the services
performed during a preceding four-week per .od .
which amount is due and payable upon receipt. Such
• statement shall set forth the percentage of work
completed for each Subtask as contained under this
Section of the AGREEMENT.
—6—
-------
4.2- Additional Services
4.2.1 In the event the (City) determines t1 at it is nec-
essary to engage the (Firm) to perform additional
services, beyond the Scope of Basic Contract
Services as outlined under “Exhibit B”, the (Firm)
shall be compensated for said additional services
in accordance with the (Firm’ s) Sourly Rate
Schedule, attached as “EXEIBIT 0” and made a part
of this AGREEMENT, plus direct reimbursement for
out—of—pocket travel and subsistence expenses. No
activities shall be carried out by the (Firm),
under Additional Services, except upon written
direction of the (City), by its designated repre-
sentatives.
4.2.2 Terms of payment for Additional Services:
4.2.2.1 (Firm) shall furnish and deliver to (City) a state-
ment in writing which sets forth the amount due to
(Firm) from (City) for the services perforzned ,whi.Ch
amount shall be payable upon receipt: Such state-
ment shall set forth direct payroll expenses as
well as reimbursable expenses, for the work per-
formed.
4.3 If (City) fails to make any payment within thirty
(30) days after the due date (Firm) may, after
giving fourteen (14) days written notice to (City),
suspend services under this AGREEMENT until (Firm)
has been paid all amounts due him in full.
SECTION 5. PERFORMANCE
5.1 In the performance of the services hereunder,
(Firm) shall exercise that degree of skill and
care as required by customarily accepted
professional practice and procedure. (Zirm) also
accepts the relationship of trust and confidence
established between it and (City) by this AGREE-
MENT.
5.2 (Firm) may engage the services of consultants,
subcontractors or other specialists, but only with
I: the written consent of the (City). A.ny such
consultants, subcontractors or specialists shall
—7—
-------
5.2 continued....
be under the sole supervision of the (Firm) and
compensated solely by the (Firm) as part of (Firm’s)
obligations under this AGREE.MENT.
5.2.1 By mutual agreements between the (City) and the
(Firm), Environmental Laboratories Incorporated,
of Mount Vernon, New York, will be engaged as a
subcontractor to the (Firm) to perform selected
activities under Engineering Evaluation TASK 1 of
the Scope of Services under this AGREEMENT.
5.2.2 By mutual agreement, between the (City) an the
(Firm), Paine, Webber 1 7ackson & Curtis, Inc. of
New York, ?Jew York, will be engaged as a con-
sultant to the (Firm) to perform selected activities
under Management/Institutional TASKS 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5, as well as Joint TASKS 1, 2 and 3.
Prior tO the (City) making any payment to the
for any services performed by any consultant,
contractor or specialist, with respect to the
(Study), the (Firm) shall submit a copy of each
duly executed subcontract agreement between the
(Firm) and the consultant, subcontractor, or other
specialist.
SECTION 6. INSURANCE
During the performance of the work covered by this AGREE-
MENT, (Firm) shall maintain for (Firm’s) protection the
following insurance; statutory workmen’ s compensation
I
5.3
(Firm)
sub—
—8—
ii
-------
coverage; general liability insurance, including bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage; and auto-’
mobile liability insurance, including bodily injury and
property 41 ge. (.Pirm) shall maintain general liability
insurance which shall include contractual liability coverage,
waiver of subrogation by the insurance carrier against
(City) and where there is a claim against both (.City) and
(Firm) which is covered by (Firm’s) general liability in-
surance, then (Firm’s) general liability insurance shall be
prime insurance as to (City’s) insurance. (Firm) shall
also secure and maintain professional liability insurance
coverage for its services under this AGRBEMEVT.
SECTION 7. TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION
(City) may terminate or suspend all, or a portion of (Firm’s)
services under this AGREEMENT provided (City) gives (Firm)
I thirty (30) days written notice, however, the thirty (30)
days written notice requirement shall not be applicable if
the termination or suspension is caused by (Firm’s) breach
of its obligations under this AGREEMENT. (Firm) may terms-
I nate the services being provided under this AGREEMENT
should (City) fail to substantially perform in accordance
with the terms of this AGREEMENT or violate the payment
terms in Section 4 or does not permit (Firm) to carry out
its obligations hereunder. In the event of any termination
or suspension (Firm) shall be entitled to full payment to
the time of termination plus reasonable charges for the
services performed to execute an orderly termination.
9
-------
SECTION 8. FORCE MA .7EURZ
Neither party shall be considered in default in performance
of its obligations hereunder to the extent that performance
of such obligations, or any of them, is delayed or pre-
vented by Force Majeure. Force Ma eure shall include, but
not be limited to hostilities, revolution, civil coimnotion,
strikes, epidemic, accident, fire, flood, wind, earthquake,
explosion, blockage or embargo, lack of or failure of trans-
portation facilities, or any law, proclamation, regulation
or ordinance, demand or requirement of any Government or
Governmental agency having or claiming to have jurisdiction
over the work or with respect to materials purchased for
the work, or over the parties hereto, or other act of
Government, or any .of God, or any cause whether of the same
or different nature, existing or future; provided that the
cause, whether or not enumerated in this Section, is beyond
the control and without the fault or negligence of the
party seeking relief under this Section.
SECTION 9 • DOCUMENTS
All original drawings, estimates, specifications, and field
data will become the property of (City) upon final payment
I by (City). If these documents are changed and/or reused
‘without approval or adaptation by (City), (Firm) shall have
no liability to anyone for any damage or loss, caused as a
result of the reuse and/or change. (Firm) shall indemnify
and hold (City) harmless from all such damages, losses
and incurred expenses. (Firm) may retain record copies
of all such documents as well as working papers, notes,
jand diaries of its employees.
—10—
-------
SECTION 10. “DELETED 1 ’
“NO TEXT UNDER THIS SECTION”
SECTION 11. GENERAL
11.1 This AGREEMENT represents the entire and integrated
AGREEMENT between (City) and (Pirin) and supersedes
all prior negotiations representations or agree—
ments, either written or oral. Th.is AGREEMENT
may be amended only by written instrument signed
by both and
II
—11—
-------
11.2 In the event any provisions of this GREEMENT shall
be held to be invalid and unenforceable, the re-
maining provisions shall be valid and binding upon
the parties. One or more waivers by either party
of any provision, term, condition or covenant
shall not be construed by the other party as a
waiver of subsequent breach of the same by the
other party.
11.3 (Firm) shall complete the various phases of the
work within the time mutually agreed but it is
agreed that (Firm) is not responsible for delays
occasioned by factors beyond its control; nor by
factors which could not reasonably have been fore-
seen at the time this Contract was prepared. This
paragraph is subject to the provisions of Section 5
of this AGREEMENT.
11.4 (City), through its project representative, shall
at all times have access to (Firm’s) work under
this AGREEMENT. (Firm) shall, as required, provide
adequate facilities for such access. In respect
to reimbursable billing under Section 4, a record
of (Firm’s) direct payroll expenses, cost for
outside professional services, utilized under this
AGREEMENT, and reimbursable expenses pertaining
to this AGREEMENT shall be made available to (City)
personnel in (Firm’s) office upon reasonable notice
at mutually convenient times.
Ii
II
—12—
-------
SECTION 12. NOTICES
All notice requests and authorizations provided for herein
shall be in writing and shall be delivered or mailed,
addressed as follows:
To (City)
City of Burlington
Department of Streets
P. 0. Box 849
Burlington, Vermont 05402
To (Firm)
William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C.
Plaza Building — Suite 102
100 Crossways Park West
Woodbury, New York 11797
or addressed to either party at such other address as such
party shall hereafter furnish to the other party in writing.
Each such notice, request, or authorization shall be deemed
to have been dully given when so received registered, pestagi
paid.
SECTION 13. GOVENNING LAW
This AGREEMENT shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Vermont.
SECTION 14. WHEN CONTRACT EFFECTIVE
This AGREEMENT shall become effective upon acceptance of
I the foregoing by signature of the parties below:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, (City) and (Firm) have caused this
AGREEMENT to be signed as of the day and year first written
above.
I By: Mire Dvirka—Vice President
(firm)
I. By:______________
city
I I
I —13—
-------
“ EXHIBIT A ”
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
for
FEASIBILITY STUDY OP SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
BURLINGTON-, VERMONT
ISSUED BY: The City of Burlington
Streets Department
339 Pine Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
DATE OF ISSUE: February 1, 1979
DUE DATE FOR PROPOSAL: March 12, 1979
-Al -.
-------
EXBIBIT B
SCOPE OF BASIC CONTRACT SERVICES
PHASE A: Engineering Evaluation Tasks
TASK 3. - VERIPICATION OF SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES AND
CHARACTERISTICS
Objective: The (Firm) shall gather and develop
base line data, required for the assessment of
resource (energy) recovery alternatives, including
data on present and projected solid waste quantities
requiring sanitary landfilliflg.
St3B’rASI(S:
1A- COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA
• .The (City) shall identify for and pro-
vide to, the (Firm) existing data and
reports.
. The (Firm) shall review and analyze
such data and reports as part of prepara
tion of baseline data generation.
• Existing solid waste volumetric data
shall be converted into equivalent
weights by the (Firm).
15- COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF NEW DATA
• The (Firm) shall conduct a one week
weighing program, simultaneouslY at
the C .ty of Burlington, City of South
Burlington and Rathe Brothers Landfills.
—31—
-------
- Necessary portable weighing scales shall
be provided by the (Firm), with coopera-
tion from the State of Vermont.
- Necessary auxiliary equipment shall be
provided by the (Firm) • with cooperation
from the (City).
• To the extent possible 1 the (Firm) shall
maintain a log auring the weighing pro-
gram. Said log shall include information
to identify date, tine of day, name of
hauler, general classification of waste
and origin of waste.
• The (Firm) shall compile detailed daily
and weekly sun ary data front the one
week weighing pro vran conducted at each
of the three (3) landfills involved.
• The (Firm) shall perform field and
Laboratory Analysis, of selected grab
or vehicle (hand separated) samples
taken during the one week weighing pro-
gram, for heat content, moisture content
and ultimate analysis.
1C- DATA PROJECTIONS
• Utilizing baseline data, developed under
Subtasks l .A and lB, the (Firm) shall
update and refine present and projected
solid waste auantities and characteris-
tics. -
F —B2—
-------
• The quantitative analysis shall include
yearly totals, as well as monthly averages
monthly maximum and rtonthly minimum, to
reflect seasonal variations.
• Available current population growth pro-
jections shall be utilized for use in
updating solid waste quantity projections
through the year 2005. Yearly quantities
of solid waste generat .On shall be matched
with corresponding populat3.Ons to calcu-
late per capa.ta generation rates for the
region to be served. The data shall be
analyzed to project future yearly,
monthly average and seasonal variation
impact en the month ly maximwl and
monthly minimum solid waste generation
rates required to develop nominal and
peak potential capacity for the resource
recovery facility, as well as long term
and interim landfil] .ing considerations.
• • To the extent possthle, from the base-
line data developed under Subtasks 1A
and 13, the (Firm’s) quantative analysis
shall break down the solid wastes into
the following classifications:
— Municipal solid wastes
Industrial wastes
— commercial wastes
I !
3—3
-------
1D- ESTIMATE SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES AVAILABLE
OUTSIDE THE CITY
• The (Firm), with cooperation from the
(City), shall identify the regions being
served by the Landfills located in the
Towns of Coichester, Shelburne and
Winooski.
• The (Firm), with cooperation from the
(City), shall edtimate the quantities
of solid waste being landfilled at these
sites.
• Utilizing available current population
growth projections, for the regions
being served by these landfills, the
(Firm) shall develop present and projected
per capita generation rates.
TASK 2 - TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
Objective: The (Firm) shall identify, describe and
compare all applicable, successfully demonstrated,
solid waste disposal and resource recovery n thods,
technologically feasible and appropriate to the
greater Burlington Area, based on data developed
under ENGINEERING EVALUATION TASK 1; demographiC,
physical and climatological considerations; and energy
market constraints determined under MANAGEMENT!
INSTITVTIONAL TASK 2.
—B4—
II
-------
• SUBTASKS:
2A- REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF PREVIOUS STUDIES
• The (City) shall provide the (.Firm) with
copies of the following previous studies:
- 3 r ingt0fl. Vermont Refuse - Wood Power
Plant/AaUaCul ture/GreenhoUse - A Con-
ceptual Study - 1977, Henningson,Durh t
and Richardson.
- integrated Enerqv - Utility Systems —
1977/1978, Paul L. Geringer and ASsociates
• The (Firm) shall review these studies,
extracting and evaluating relevant data.
23— IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR ENERGY MARKET NEEDS
• The (Firm), with cooperation from the
(City), shall identify major potential
energy markets within the City of
Burlington and within proximity of the
site(s) selected by the (City for the
proposed resource recovery faci1 .tY.
• The (Firm) shall verify the xistiflg
markets for energy produced by the
proposed resource recovery facility.
• The (Firm), together with the (City),
shall meet with designated representa-
tives of the potential markets to de—
terutifle energy quantity and quality
1.
-------
demands, as well as the nature of energy
use. Maximum, minimum az)d seasonal
demand data shall be obtained, compiled
and evaluated. Any critical timing
aspects, relative to potential market
energy needs, shall be identified by the
(Firm).
2C- INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT OF APPLICABLE
TECHNOLOGIES
• The (Firm shall identify, review and
assess all applicable, successfully
demonstrated, solid waste processing,
resource recovery and disposal technol-
ogies, including solid waste and sewage
sludge codisposal.
2D- INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT OF NON APPLICABLE
TECHNOLOGIES
• The (Firm) shall provide, in matrix
format, those technologies not appli-
cable to the City of Burlington’s
proposed resource recovery program
including reasons for nonapplicability.
TASK 3 - REVIEW PROGRAM COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER
WASTE REDUCTION AND/OR SOURCE SEPARATION
PROGRAMS
Objective: The (Firm) shall investigate the impact
of various waste reduction/source separation pro-
grams on the (City’s) solid waste disposal and
resource recovery program.
-B6-
I’
-------
3A— ASSESS IZIPACT OF STATE BEVEB.AGE CONTAINER
LAW -
• The (Firm) shall investigate the impact
of the State of Vermont’s Beverage
Container Deposit Law on the available
wastestreamt.
3B- ASSESS IMPACT OF OTHER WASTE R EDUCTION AND/OR
SOURCE SEPARATION STRATEGIES
• The (Firm), with cooperat2.on from the
(City) will seek to investigate the
impacts of other waste reduction/source
separation strategies.
— . Identification of types and frequency
of collection practices for major sources
of solid waste.
— Identification of existing and planned
solid waste management systems, such
as transfer—haul systems.
• The (Firm) shall stake recommendations
regarding collection practices required
to complement a regional energy recovery
facility.
• The (Firm) shall s muuarize the impact
of waste reduction/source separation
strategies in a graphical illustration.
—B7—
-------
TASK 4 - rThLUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Objective: The (Firm)shall identify required
permits, studies and other institutionar Processes
relative to the City’s solid waste management alterna-
tives; summarize these issues; and evaluate the int-
pact of these issues on scheduling and costs of the
City’s alternatives.
SUBTASKS:
4A- IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERMITS AND
PROCEDURES
• The (Firm) shall identify all reauired
perznits,studies and procedures, involved
in the implementation of landfill and
resource recovery alternatives.
• The (City) shall provide and the (Firm)
shall review previous environmental.
assessment study work performed for the
Burlington Electric Company, to obtain
background data on the (City’s) proposed
site for the resource recovery facility.
4B- SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• The (Firm) shall prov3.de a summary of
all applicable environmental issues in
matrix format.
4C- ASSESS IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ON
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
• The (Firm) shall assess the potent .al
impact of the appli.able environmental
issues on program coSts and scheduling.
-ES-
-------
TASK 5 - EVALUATION. OF LANDFILL REQUIBEHENTS
Ob ective: The (Firm) shall evaluate the (City’s)
landfill alternatives based on two possibilities:
(1) 100% landfill disposal for the (City’s)
wastestream, based on no resource/energy
recovery over the 25 year planning period.
(2) Interim 100% landfill disposal for the
(City’s) wastestream during resource
recovery program iinplementatio period,
followed by landfill disposal of residue
and nonrecoverable materials from the
resp)arce recovery process during the
remainder of the 25 year planning period.
SUBTASKS:
5A- ACCESS EXISTING LANDFILLS WITHIN CITY
• The (Firm) shall assess general site
I: conditions and establish expected useful
life of the three (3) existing landfills
in the area (Burlington, South Burlington
and Rathe Brothers) for the following
alternatives:
— 100% landfill d .sposal method for the
(City’s) wastestream, based on no
resource/energy recovery over the 25
year planning period.
—B9—
-------
— Interim 100% landfill disposal for the
(City’s) wastestrealn during resource
recovery prograrn implei’ez tation period,
followed by landfill disposal of residue
and nonrecoverable materials from the
resource recovery Facility process during
the 25 year planning period.
53- IDENTIFY POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITES OUTSIDE
CITY
• The (Firm) shall conduct a general survey,
with (City) to identify and evaluate
potential new sanitary landfill sites
within a 15 mile radius of the (City).
•The survey, identification and evalua-
tion shall include:
— Site visits and field inspection
— General field evaluation and identifica-
tion of geographic relationship of sites
to surrounding land areas
— Description of surface soil type. The
(Firm) shall also describe subsurface
soil types, groundwater elevations and
site topography, to the extent that
(City) can obtain and provide such data
to the (Firm).
p
—BlO—
-------
— The (Firm) shall also characterize
traffic flow, to the exter t that the
(City) can obtain and provide to the
(Firm) present and projected traffic
comt data, for the adjacent road
network serving each potential site.
5C- IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE LONG TERM LANDFILL NEEDS
• The (Firm) shall identify potential
long term disposal plans for the (City)
for alternatives identified under this
TASK.
5D- IDENTIFY INTERIM LANDFILL NEEDS
• The (Firm) shall identify ixiterixi disposal
plans for the (City) based on iznpleznenta—
tion of the resource recovery alternative.
TASK 6 - COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Objective: The (Firm) shall compare economic
viability of the long term landfill alternative tO
the most technological, environmental and
economically feasible resource recovery systems
identified under ENGINEERING EVALUATION TASK 2.
SUBTASES:
6A- DEVELOP CAPITAL AND RECURRING COSTS FOR
ALTERNATIVES
• The (Firm) shall develop capital and
recurring costs for the various solid
waste management alternatives. All
— Dl i—
-------
costs shall be based on 1979 dollars.
Capital and recurring cost estimates shall
be based on concept desigz la ’outs. The
projection of capital and recurring costs
of sanitary landfilling operations shall
be based on compliance with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).
63- DEVELOP AND ASSESS NON-ECONOMIC CONSIDERA-
TIONS
• The (Firm) shall develop criteria for,
as well as perform the assessment of,
non-economic considerations, including:
- Public acceptance
— Technological reliability
— Environmental considerations
- Public health
— Aesthetics
6C- ANALYSIS OF COST/BENEFIT ALTERNATIVES
• The (Firm) shall develop a practical
cost/benefit comparison of alterna—
tives:
— The (Firm) shall provide a comparison
of total owning/operating costs in
tabular form, illustrating costs over
the 25 year planning period.
-B12-
-------
- The (Firm) shall provide net cost of
solid waste disposal for each alterna-
tive.
PHASE 3: MANAGEMENT/INSTITUTIONAL TAG S
TASX 1 - DEVELOPMENT OF WASTE SUPPLY STRATEGY
Objective: The (Firm) shall, with the (City),
develop a strategy for securing the required solid
waste supply to the proposed resource recovery
facility.
StJBTASKS:
1A- IDENTIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE HAULERS WITHIN
REGION TO BE SERVED
• The (Firm), with cooperation by the
(City), shall identify sources of waste
supply available to the haulers.
•. The (Firm) with cooperation by the
(City), shall review existing arrange-
ments for the collection of solid waste
between supply sources and waste haulers.
• The (Firm) with cooperation by the
(City) shall identify waste ceneratorS
that currently dispose of their waste
on their own property.
• The (Firm), wit PI.e cooperation by
the (City), shall seek to identify
potential waste generators that may,
or may not, be available to the (City)
on a long term basis.
—B13—
-------
• The (Firm), with cooperation by the
(City), shall identify and-assess
techniques used for securing waste
from each source.
• The (Firm), with cooperation by the
(City) shall determine ability of
solid waste haulers to enter into long
term agreements.
• The (Firm) shall generate a “letter of
intent” to enter into long term agree-
ment for delivery of solid waste to the
proposed facility, for preliminary dis-
cussions with waste suppliers and
haulers.
lB- CHARACTERIZE VIABLE WASTE SUPPLY CONTROL
TECHNIQUES
• The (Firm) shall present an overview of
waste supply control techniques
currently in use or potentially avail-
able to the (City). The (Firm) shall
include advantages and disadvantages
of the various waste control options
such as legal viability; private
haulers’ acceptability; impact on
project cost and economic viability
of the project; and other relevant
site specific criteria. The overview
shall be suimnarized and presented
in matrix form.
I.
-314-
-------
TASK 2 - 1.IABIcET SURVEY
Ob ectiVe The (Firm) shall estahlish and priortize
the energy users within the area of the project,
determine compatibilitY of their needs with the
facility output, and review and coordinate with
potential users contract provisionS necessary to
finalize an agreement (with emphasis on finalizing
an agreement with the University).
SUBTASKS:
2k- IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL
MARKETS
• Invesitgate and identify potential
markets (inclusive of and in addition
to UVM and the Medical Center) for
recovered energy and materials to be
produced under the resource recovery
program, i cluding:
— Q antity/qUafltitY requirements
— specification requirements versus price
— willingness (ability) tO enter into
intermediate and long term contracts;
determine basic conditions of proposed
contract.
— Willingness of market to invest in proCeS
and/or transportation equipment necessarY
to use or market by-products.
—BiS—
-------
Ii
— Financial resources of market
- Length of residency in the area
- Parent Company’s involvement
- I.ong term viability.
I 2B— ASSESSMENT OF INTERACTION WITH BURLINGTON
I ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT
• The (Firm) shall provide a basis for,
and determine appropriate alternatives
Ii for, coordinating a resource recovery
II facility with the Burlington Electric
(j Dept.’s wood-fired generation plant.
I 2C- ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ON RESIDUE
HAU ALTERNATIVES
I . The (Firm) shall evaluate the impact
I of market and resource recovery facility
location on the economics of transporting
residue to alternative landfill loca-
tions, identified under ENGINEERING
EVALUATION TASZ 5.
2D- DETERMINE OPTIMUM RESOURCE RECOVERY STRATEGY
• The (Firm) shall determine the optimum
resource recovery mode and iznplementa—
tion strategy; recozmnend and develop
I alternative implementation strategies.
—Bl6—
I
-------
TASK 3- IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OP
ALTERNATIVE PROCUREMENT METHODS
Objective: The (Firm) shall jdentify, assess and
s iim ize in matrix form alternative procurement
methods available to the (City) for implementation
of the proposed resource recovery facility.
3A- IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF RISKS
• Perform an analysis to identify the
risks associated with alternative
procurement methods.
33— QU ANTIFICATION OF RISK COSTS
• Quantify costs associated with risk
assumption to provide cost/benefit
comparisons.
3C- ASSESSMENT OR RISE ALLOCATION
• Develop a series of scenarios de-
tailing risk allocation under alterna-
tive approaches.
3D- EVALUATION SUMMARY OF RISKS
• Provide a matrix swmnary for comparing
the evaluation of each alternative with
regard to risk, cost, flexibility, ease
I! ° management, and any other relevant
1. criteria.
—317—
-------
TASK 4- IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OP ALTERNATIVE
FINANCING METHODS -
Objective: The (Firm) shall identify, assess and
swiIm rize in a report, alternative financing methods
available to the (City) for implementation of the
resource recovery facility.
SUBTASKS:
4A- IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE FINANCING
METHODS
• Identify alternative methods of
financing resource recovery projects,
including public, private and cotnbina—
tion public/private options.
43- DEVELOPMENT OF EVALUATIVE CRITERIA FOR
OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION ALTERNATIVES
• Develop financial evaluative criteria
to review alternative ownership and
operations options:
4C- IDENTIFICATION OF FINANCING RISKS
• Identify financial risks and investor
concerns in resource recovery projects;
4D— QUANTIFICATION OF COSTS FOR PI.NANCING
ALTERNATIVES
• Quantify the differences in cost of
borrowing under alternative financial
methods;
-318-
-------
4E- QUANTIFICATION OF TAX BENEFITS FOR FINANCING ‘
ALTERNATIVES -
• Quantify the tax benefits available to
private sector participants in resource
recovery projectS:
4F- IDENTIFICATION OF INTERIM FINANCING METHODS
.. Explore methods of interim financing;
4G- COMPILATION OF FINANCING METHODS u’rILIZED
BY OTHER RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS
• provide descriptions of how other con%—
parativelY sized resource recovery
facilities have been/are being financed;
4H- IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE FINANCING
METHODS CONTRACTUAL REQU IBEMENTS -
• Identify contractual requirements under
alternative financing methods;
41- DEVELOPMENT OF FINANCING MODEL AND PLAN
• Develop a financing model and plan
consistent with the technical and
other risks to be assumed by the City.
4J- TASK REPORT
• Summarize the above subtasks in a
report detailing methods of financing
available and what the use of each
would mean to the City in terms of its
impact on net disposal costs; include an
assessment of the current money market
conditions and their effect on interest
rates.
5 19—
-------
TASK 5— REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF PROCUREMENT/
CONTRACTING LAWS
Objective: The (Firm) shall review applicable
State and Municipal Laws, and assess procure-
ment capabilities as well as legal conflicts.
SUBTASKS:
5A- REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF PROCURENENT/
CONTRACTING LAWS
• Review Vermont law and recent court
decisions to assess and evaluate the
procurement and contracting processes
proposed for establishment of a waste
management program for the (City).
53- IDENTIFICATION Or (CITY’S) LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
. Initiate discussions with appropriate
(City) and State officials as may be
required to clarify the legal obligation
of the (City) in connection with the
waste management program.
5C- IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL PROCUREMENT
LEGAL CONSTRAINTS
. List possible legal barriers in procure-
merit processes that may affect the
ability of the City to implement a re-
source/energy recovery facility.
5D- IDENTIFICATION OF STRATEGIES TO RESOLVE
LEGAL CONSTRAINTS
. Identify possible strategies to deal
with legal barriers.
—B20—
-------
I !
53- RANKING o PROC REl ALTERNATIVES
• Rank procurement capabil±ties under
various methods of dealing with legal
barriers and assess advantages and
disadvantages.
PHASE C: JOINT TASKS
TASK 1- 3RIEPINGS AND COORDINATION MEETINGS
• The (Firm) shall: plan and schedule,
with the (City) a total of seven (7)
meetings to review and discuss progress
under the ENGINEERING EVALUATION and
MANAGE.MENT/INSTI’IUTIQNAL TASKS.
• The (Firm) shall assist the (City) in
the development of news releases in
connection with (Study) progress and
status reports, as may be requested
by the (City’s) designated representa-
tive.
TASK 2 - DRAFT AND FINAL REPORTS
SUBTASIS:
2A- DRAFT FINAL REPORT
• Submit ten (10) copies of draft final
report without specific reco imtendat .ons.
23— DECISIONMAEERS WORKSHOP
• Arrange a decision—makers workshop to
be held within two weeks follbwing the s
mi.ttal of the draft report. Workshop
shall provide a for l mechanism for
the expression of profess .onal feel .ngs,
opinions, recoimnendations, as well as
allowing input frnm local offic a1S.
—B2 1—
-------
2C- FINAL REPORT
• Incorporate couents aired at the
workshop into a final report. Submit
twenty (20) copies of the final report
to the (City) of Burlington within 4
weeks of the workshop.
TASK 3 - DEVELOP INPL 1E!4TATION PLAN
• Upon the (City’s) decision to select
one of the proposed alternatives, the
development of the implementation plan
shall be completed concurrently with
the preparation of the final report.
• The implementation plan shall include
selection of a specific resource recovery
system or 100% landfill option.
recoi ended procurement method, drafts
of legislation as might be required to
ascertain availability of refuse and
drafts of contracts for the sale of
recoverable couunodit .es in the form of
materials or energy.
—B22—
-------
ATTAC 1ENT I
-------
City of Burlington JAMES R. OGOEN
00. Box 849 SUPERINTENOENT
Burlington, Vermont 05402
802/864.7428
ALL9LL& 2, 1979
Mn.. Co d 0. os2exs
U.S. Enviir.ojvnen.ta.t P ’c.o.tec. 2on Agency
JoItn F. Kennethj Fedeiza. BuL d. ,tg
Bo t oi’t, M 02203
Vea.’t Con,tc.d:
A4 yoa wr.e. awax we have been ezt’ emeLy p1w2 ed wLdz die heLp we have
keae ved .thiwc gh .the Techy cø2 i tgnce. PaneL whi.ch yowr. dapa/c.tjnen..t
adnuni te..&ed.
Yowt aon u an.t s, Go’rdi ..an ocO A, Inc., have been ezce.ed i.ng1y he2p u2
tMoughou.1 Jite 6 e2e t.Lon pJtoce , pair2Lau2a,’rfjj £ei 6 eveAaL o the “LcIz ei ”
4poI 6, 4ach a when the 4e2e.cti.on committee. dead2ocize.d Ln citoo4Lng beiLueen
he .two naL t4, and a.gai.n when .(.t wao t me .to d’c t .the de.tci2ed cope
o woith 601L the 6t dq. TkeA t pa a.i.patLon a. t .the se lzey po nta, no t -to
mention tkeL’r . heLp ut pn.epwthtg .the RFP docwnen.t and 4uppUng ma.tei aL to
4peed the 6eLec.tLon ‘wce , a4 weLt ao .theAIL nwn21wU6 otite,t 4ugge4 tA.on4
and advi..ce, have ce..’r...tai.n.ey pn.ov. ded U4 wZ.th a o.txong a e.n o e o d. tec.t’on
and a g.’ e.a deaL o co4Ldenc.e (jj owt deoL ng4 w. th .the e .ngLne.ex Lng con-
W tJi thi..o ot nund, I am keaue. t .ng tha.t GoM.iLa.i’t A ocJ ate4, In c. be te,ta.Lned
o a ec u.o ivwagh the kema nde,t a -the p’wjeC. , o’c. a..t eea4 t .tJVLouLgh -the
ea4.th cLif 4 4tw43. 1 eeL 4ttong&j .tha..t th2.LJL wn.tLnued pa tLc2pa. on,
whetite.n. i..t be a .tliAitd pa ty tev ew, oir. a4 geneicaL ww -i eL adffi tei ng
a.44 4tanae on ‘ .eqt eot a1 o.thei teg i c thm.thg the. adg, w. U piwve
Ulv1Llb ea to u.o .n the £.ong
Ve/ty .tiw.e.y yowto,
BURLINGTON STREET VPARTMENT
‘ —I.
a na R. Ogden
Sap Lnte.ndenJ a
JR O/ad
cc: Kaiwey Ge.n.ohman
-------
10
Task 12. Review procurement/contracting laws; make recommendations
as needed . As part of implementation, a number of agreements and con-
tracts will be needed (system purchase, financing, securing the waste,
marketing the energy product). These should be examined in light of
municipal restrictions (if any) on agreements and contract commitments.
General Content of the Request for Proposals
The purpose of the RFP is to elicit responses from interested,
qualified consulting firms. It should contain as much relevant data
as possible, so that respondents can be more precise and specific in
their responses. A draft RFP is being prepared-by Gordian Associates
and will be submitted to Mr. Ogden of the Streets Department by January
15, 1979. At a minimum, it will request the following of each respond-
ing company.
— Qualifications and experience (both corporate and individual).
— A detailed work plan to accomplish work areas listed above.
The work plan should show approach, data needs, outputs, and
relative level of personnel effort.
- A project schedule.
- Specific staff assignments.
— A commitment that the respondent’s work plan can be accom-
plished within the funds available to the City for the
study (the limit of available funds should be stated in
the RFP).
-------
AITA B iENT D
-------
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
for
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE S
BURLINGTON, VERMONT
ISSUED BY: The City of Bur1 ngton
Streets Department
339 Pine Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
DATE OF ISSUE: February 1, 1979
DUE DATE FOR PROPOSAL: March 12, 1979
-------
TP BLE OF CONTENTS
Pg. 1. I. BACKGROUND
2 II. GENERAL INFORMATION
2 A. Issuing office and point of contact
2 3. Deadline for receipt of proposals
2 C. Revision to RPP
2 D. Limitations to liability
2 E. Rejection of proposals
2 F. Type of contract/fees and compensation
3 G. Joint proposals and use of subcontractors
3 H. Proposal evaluation
4 I. Schedule for selection of a consultant
4 J. Format for proposals
5 K. Cost estimates
6 L. Feasibility study schedule
7 III. FEASIBILITY STUDY WORK AREAS
7 A. Engineering evaluation
8 3. Management/Institutional analysis
9 • C. Joint tasks
APPENDIX
A. Sample contract
-------
I. BACXGROUND
In recent years, two studies have been completed that looked at solid waste re-
rource recovery for the City of Burlington and adjacent couununitieS. In one
study, “Burlington, Vermont Refuse—Wood Power Plant/Aquaculture/Greenhouse — a
Conceptual Study,’ completed by Henningson Durham and Richardson in 1977, the
analysis addressed resource recovery for the waste stream of Chittenden County
(roughly 270 tpd). Four alternative technologies were considered, with modular
combustion being recoum ended. The potential steam market in this study included
the adjacent 50 mw wood—fired plant, the University of Vermont and the University
Medical Complex, or the proposed aquaculture/greenhouse complex to be located
near the refuse plant and generating station.
The second study was completed during 1977 and 1978 by Paul L. Geiringer and
Associates, in conjunction with the Energy Research and Development Administra-
tion and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. This study was focused
on “Integrated Energy - Utility Systems” (I.E.U.S.) and it recommended a 15 ton
per hour incinerator be constructed to provide high temperature hot water to the
University of Vermont, the Hospital Complex and other municipal markets.
These two reports, while dealing with somewhat different facilities, are generally
positive toward the concept of energy recovery from local refuse streams, with
steam and hot water being used to supply needs at the Univer sitY and the Medical
Center. In addition, the City’s landfill is facing an uncertain future due to
its location and the limited space available for continued operation.
Based on these facts, the City has authorized a bond issue of up to $10 million
to construct a system as described above. A site has been secured adjacent to
the landfill where both the refuse plant and the proposed Burlington Electric
Department 50 mw wood-fired generating plant can be located. Planning for the
generating plant is proceeding. The City intends at this time to conduct a more
specific feasibility study of a refuse—to—energy system so that a final decision
can be made whether to continue exclusive landfill disposal or to develop a solid
waste management system. A budget of $80,000 has been set aside for the study
implementation.
The purpose of the PFP is to elicit responses from qualified firms to undertake
the feasibility study as consultants to the City. Al]. information needed for
preparation of a proposal is contained in the RFP and its appendix. Additional
data, including the full text of both the HDR and the I.E.U.S. reports is avail-
able for review at the City Department of Streets.
-------
II. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. ISSUING OFFICE AND POINT OF CONTACT
This Request for Proposal (RPP) is issued by the Streets Department of
the City of Burlington. The Streets Department is to be the sole point
of contact for any questions related to the RFP. Questions should be
directed to:
James R. Ogden
Streets Department
City of Burlington
339 Pine Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Phone: 802—864—7428
B. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS
All replies and proposals in response to this RFP must be received in a
sealed envelope and clearly marked as a “Feasibility Study Proposal” at
the address shown above not later that 4:30 p.m. EST, March 12, 1979 at
which time they will be opened and recorded. Ten (10). sets of proposals
must be submitted and late replies will not be considered.
C. REVISIONS TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
If it beaomes necessary to revise any part of the RFP, the revisions will
be circulated to all those who received the original document.
D. LIMITATIONS TO LIABILITY
The City of Burlington assumes no responsibility and no liability for costs
incurred by proposers in responding to this RFP or in responding to any
further request for interviews, additional data, etc., prior to the issu-
ance of a contract.
E. REJECTION OF PROPOSALS
The City of Burlington reserves the right to reject any or all proposals,
or to award contracts in whole or in part, if this is held to be in the
City’s best interest.
F. TYPE OF CONTRACT/FEES AND COMPENSATION
The City expects to execute a firm fixed price (“lump sum”) contract for
the feasibility study. Cost—plus - percentage-of-cost contracts are pro-
hibited. A sample contract form is included as Appendix A. The sample is
not intended to be restrictive and specific terms will be worked out during
negotiations.
As described in Sectionll. K. below, it is not necess4ry for proposers to
submit detailed cost information with their proposals. However, the City’s
budget for this study is fixed. In developing their technical work plan,
proposers are reminded that all costs and charges related to the performance
-------
of their proposed services may eventually have to:
1. Be shown in a detailed cost breakdown, if the proposer is
selected by the City for further evaluation; and
2. Be included within and covered entirely by the proposer’s
fixed fee, if the proposer is selected by the City for
further evaluation.
G. JOINT PROPOSALS AND THE USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS
The City sees the feasibility study as being made up of two equally impor-
tant parts — an assessment of management/institutional factors and the
engineering evaluation of solid waste management alternatives (see Section
III. for more details). Proposers should make certain that their “team”
of skills and specialties is fully able to address both parts of the study.
To accomplish this, proposers may find it advisable to include subcontrac-
tors or other participants in their proposal. Such an arrangement is ac-
ceptable to the City. However, this is left to the proposer’s discretion,
recognizing that the most important criterion is adequate capability in all-
areas of study work. If a subcontractor is to be used, he must be identi-
fied in the same manner as the prime contractor.
H. PROPOSAL EVALUATION
Each proposal will be evaluated initially by a team of reviewers represent-
ing various agencies of the city of Burlington. If a contract is ultimately
awarded, it will be awarded to the proposer whose proposal is deemed to
offer the greatest net advantage to the City.
The following criteria will be used by the City in making the initial
evaluation of proposals:
1. The merits of the technical response to the RFP, specifically:
a. Soundness of approach and use of appropriate methodology
in responding to each individual item in the scope of
work. (Section III.)
b. Evidence of ability to conduct both the management/insti-
tutional assessment and the engineering evaluation aspects
of the feasibility study.
c. Adequacy and appropriateness of staff assignments and time
allocation (both person—hours and calendar time) to each
work task.
2. The business reputation, professional capability and past perfor-
mance record of the firm and its key personnel who will be assigned
to the study.
3. Firm’s ability to perform the stated work within the required time
limits, considering current and projected workload.
-------
After all proposals have been evaluated, the highest ranked proposers will
be asked to attend a briefing and interview meeting with the Selection
Committee. The results of the proposal evaluation and the interview will
be considered jointly in selecting a preferred consultant. The consultants
invited to make a presentation will be asked to subntit a detailed cost es-
tiniate for further evaluation.
I. SCHEDULE FOR SELECTION OF A CONSULTANT
The following schedule shows the approximate dates in the selection pro-
cess. The schedule is included to give a general idea of the time frame
for consultant selection. However, the City will not be bound by these
dates.
EVENT APPROXIMATE DATE
RFP Issued February 1, 1979
Proposal deadline March 12
Review proposals; identify March 30
top ranked proposers
Interviews held April 9 to 13
A minimum of five working days’ notice will be given to those invited for
interviews. Unsuccessful proposers will be notified by mail as quickly
as possible. -
J. FORMAT FOR PROPOSALS
There is no restriction on length of proposals. However, proposers are
encouraged to be as concise as possible. Al]. proposals shall be organized
in the following format: If not so organized, proposal shall automatically
be disqualified.
1. Letter of transmittal and ten copies of proposal. The letter of
transmittal must contain certification that the proposers work
plan can be accomplished within the resources allocated for the
study ($80,000).
2. Technical Response
a. Work plan - an itemized response to the tasks listed in Sec-
tion III. The work plan must contain a complete description
of data methods, analytic approach, methodology and outputs
of study. Major items of output should be shown in the work
schedule (Section II, J, 2, c)
1 . Staffing and manpower allocation — a table must be included
showing manhours by task for key professionals, subcontractors
or other participants. All subcontractor personnel shown,
with estimates of their manhour allocations by work tasks.
c. Work Schedule. The work schedule should show the start and
finish times of each work task. Major outputs should also
be shown.
d. Project management plan. This plan should describe the work
-------
of project personnel (including an organizational chart);
the relationship between prime and subcontractors and the
proceedure to be used for control of progress, budget and
quality of work.
3. Qualifications of personnel.
a. Current resumes of key personnel proposed for the study.
b. Job/personnel matrix. This matrix should show key per-
sonnel on the vertical axis and individual prior related
projects on the horizontal axis. Entries in the matrix
should identify the role of each key person in each prior
project (e.g. Project Manager, Senior Engineer). Pro-
jects listed in the matrix should be the same as those
shown in section 4 “Experience of the Firm”.
c. Summary of total, manpower resources in the firm Cs).
This s mmtary should show the total manpower resources
of the firm by professional and support category:
Economist _________________
Mechanical Engineer __________________
Hydrologists _________________
Etc. .
Clerical Staff __________________
Total _________________
4. Experience of the firm Cs).
a. Work history — for each related project, supply the fol-
lowing information:
(1) Name, address and phone numberof client representative.
(2) Brief suzimiary of the project.
(3) Start and completion date of work.
(4) Fee or budget for the project.
(5) Statement as to whether the job was completed on
schedule and within budget.
b. Facilities of the firm Cs).
(1) Location of the office where work will be performed.
(2) Other offices and any other facilities that will be
useful in the feasibility study.
5. Statement of financial data of the firm.
6. Other data.
If desired, proposers may include any other data that they feel
will be of value in reviewing their proposal.
K. - COST ESTIMP TE
Detailed cost estimates and financial information are not required at this
-------
time. However, each proposer is asked to show a detailed work plan and
breakdown of hours by task and by key professional. Also, each proposer
is required to certify that his work plan can be accomplished within the
resources allocated for the study ($80,000) — refer to Section I . All
necessary data regarding work tasks, deliverable products, meetings, etc.,
to assist in structuring the work plan is shown in Section III.
L. PEAS lB ILIT’f STUDY SCHEDULE
Proposers are to assume a startin date of May 15, 1979. The draft feasi-
bility study is to be completed wi htn months (October 15, 1979). Review
by the City will take not more than one month. The final feasibility study
report is to be completed within one month following receipt of the City’s
coimnents. Proposers are encouraged to suggest how this schedule can be
shortened, if possible.
-------
III. FEASIBILITY STUDY WORK AREAS.
In general, the City of Burlington intends to carry out a comprehensive study
of future solid waste management options, including both landfill and resource!
energy recovery. The primary intent of the study is to enable the City to make
a firm decision between landfill and resource/energy recovery. Although it is
the City’s intent to provide for the Burlington waste stream we would be willing
to consider additional waste from outside areas if it would result in a more
economical resource recovery. The work areas described below are seen as the
areas where additional data is required before any decision can be made.
Proposers are expected to build their work plans around these tasks. The
selection of method and approach, where applicable, is left to the proposer’s
discretion. Further, if the proposer thinks that additional work areas should
be addressed, these should be listed separately, referenced or restated in the
work pl an and fully justified as to their value in the study. If additional
work areas are proposed, it should be clearly stated whether they can be accom-
plished within the City’s budget limitation.
The work areas are listed under three headings: Engineering Evaluation, Manage-
ment/Institutional Analysis, and Joint Tasks. This breakdown reflects the City’s
interpretation of the feasibility analysis as a two—part study (see Section II.
G. above).
Even though the work tasks are listed under separate headings, it is recognized
that considerable transfer of data will be necessary between the engineering
and the management/institutional area (e.g., in the markets survey, the assess-
ment of financing alternatives and the cost/benefit comparison). It is expected
that the proposer will identify and accommodate these needs for internal coordi-
- ition in his technical proposal. The joint tasks are those that are required
or the integration of study results and the preparation of reports and other
study outputs.
A. ENGINEERING EVALUATION
Task 1. Update waste flow volume and composition studies for all three
area landfills . Consultant will conduct weighing and composition study
for at least a one week period.
a. Criteria include weight; composition; daily monthly and seasonal
flow variations; and combustibility.
b. Projections of waste flow shall be made through 2005.
c. Data are presently recorded as volume estimates — a method should
be shown to convert to equivalent weights.
Task 2. Technology Review - The consultant will identify, describe and
compare all solid waste disposal methods appropriate to the 100 to 200
TPD expected in the Burlington area.
a. The review should include prior work, such as the HDR and I.E.U.S.
studies cited previously.
b. All technologies appropriate to 100 to 200 TPD should be reviewed
(an example list of technologies should be included in the proposal).
6
-------
c. Codisposal of sewage sludge with refuse will be included in
the review.
6. Evaluations should include all State and Federal regulations
pertinent to the study.
e. Review should be specific to the energy needs of the major
energy users in the area.
Task 3. Review compatibility with other waste reduction and/or source
separation programs • such as the States’ “Bottle Bill” or other recycling
efforts. Identify these and estimate their effect on the quantity and
composition of the waste stream.
Task 4. Evaluate environmental issues — all needed rmi, environmental
studies, etc. are to be identified. Assess and scope out the work that
will be needed to fulfill these requirements. This task applies both to
landfill and to major resource/energy recovery options.
Task 5. Evaluate landfill needs — this work area must address two alter-
native possibilities: a) 100% landfill, no resource/energy recovery; and
b) energy recovery, but with the interim need for landfill space through
the implementation period and the long term need for bulky waste and resi-
due disposal. Several subtasks are involved, including (but not limited
to) the following:
*determine the availability and suitability of land for long term
disposal of Burlington’s waste stream (roughly 100 TPD). (Existing
sites and any other potential sites).
*determjne the availability and suitability of land for long term
disposal of bulky items and residue from resource recovery. (Exist-
ing sites and any other potential sites).
*deve lop an interim disposal plan for the next three to five years
(during the implementation period for a resource recovery project).
Task 6. Estimate project costs and benefits - estimate the costs of land-
fill and the most feasible resource/energy recovery system. compare these
two alternatives, including in the comparison both the monetary and the
non—monetary benefits (air and water quality, energy issues). Costs to
be brokendown as to processing, transportation, 0 & H and capital costs.
Proposal shall contain a listing of the detailed cost items that will be
estimated.
B. MANAGEMENT/INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
Task 1. Develop a strategy for securing the required waste supply (100
to 200 TPD) . This task will include an identification of techniques for
securing waste sources in Burlington and neighboring communities. These
techniques (e.g., by ordinance, by permit restrictions, by economic
presures) should be assessed as to their relative usefulness and viability.
The results of this task will be an important input to the engineering
-------
analysis of optiimivn system size.
Task 2. Market survey . The two major previous studies identified the
University of Vermont and the Medical Center as the market for recovered
energy. This task should include prior work on those studies, but any
other available markets should also be identified. In particular, the
market survey should examine the alternatives for coordinating a resource/
energy recovery facility with the Burlington Electric Departsent ‘S proposed
wood-fired generating plant. The economics of market location with re-
spect to availability and landfill location should be considered in detail.
Review contract provisions necessary to finalize an agreement with the
University and review energy user contracts.
Task 3. Review alternative procurement methods . Compare architect/en-
gineer, full service and other system procurement options. Criteria for
comparison include risk, cost, flexibility and ease of management.
Task 4. Investigate alternative financing methods . The Cityl has already
authorized a $10 million bond issue to finance resource recovery if it
proves to be feasible. However, other financing methods exist. .The con-
sultant will identify these and review their relative advantages with re-
spect to municipal bond financing.
Task 5. Review procurement/contracting laws . Identify and assess any
legal barriers that would hinder the City in entering into agreements as
necessary to implement resource/energy recovery.
C. JOINT TASKS
Task 1. Prepare for and attend briefings and meetings as required. As-
s .une not less than eight meetings.
Task 2. Prepare draft and final project reports . The draft report is to
be complete within four months of the time the study commences. The final
report is to be complete within 4 weeks following receipt of the City ‘s
comments on the draft.
Task 3. Develop a recommendation for implementing solid waste management/
resource recovery for the City of Burlington .
-------
I II I l 1M A fl fl
SAMPLE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF BURLINGTON
AND
FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This AGREEMENT is made as of this the _______ day of ______, 1979
by and between the City of Burlington with offices at City Hall,
Burlington, Vermont 05401, hereinafter called (city), and ______
a _____________ corporation with offices at ______________________
hereinafter called (firm).
(City) proposes to perform a feasibility study hereinafter called
(study) and (city) desires (firm) to perform certain pr fessional
services with respect to the (study), all as more fully described
hereinafter.
SECTION 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY
The scope of the project is as described in (Request for
Proposal), attached as Exhibit A and made a part of this contract.
SECTION 2.
(Firm) shall furnish Professional Services for the (study) as here-
inafter described: in (firm’s) proposal dated _________, 1979 and
entitled (“Title of Proposal”) attached as Exhibit B and made a part
of this contract.
SECTION 3. (CITY’S) RESPONSIBILITIES
(City) shall:
3.1 Provide all criteria and full information as to his require-
ments for the (study).
3.2 Assist (firm) by placing at his disposal all available in-
formation pertinent to the (study) including previous re-
ports and other data relating to the (study).
3.3 Furnish (firm) property boundary, R.O.W., topographical and
existing utility surveys; zoning and deed reports; and other
special data or consultations not provided under this agree—
ment all of which (firm) may rely upon in performing ser-
vices under this agreement.
3.4 Designate in writing persons to act as (city’s) Representa-
tive and alternate with respect to the work to be performed
-------
under this AGREEMENT; and such person shall act as laison
between (city) and (firm) and shall have complete authority
to transmit instructions, interpret and define (city’s)
policies and decisions with respect to materials, equipment
elements, and systems pertinent to the services covered by
this AGREEMENT.
3.5 Give prompt written notice to (firm) whenever (city) observes
or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in the (study)
3.6 Bear all costs incident to compliance with the requirements
of this Section.
SECTION 4. PAYMENT TO (FIRM)
The estimated total contract price is __________________ dollars,
($ ). However, (city) shall p y (firm) on the following
basis:
I
4.1 (Insert payment schedule here).
4.1.1 Price is based upon the scope of services as outlined in
Exhibit B.
4.2 Terms o-f payment
4.2.1 Every four weeks (firm) shall furnish and deliver to (city)
a statement in writing which sets forth the amount due to
(firm) from (city) for the services performed and the charges
and expenses incurred during a preceding four—week period,
which amount is due and payable upon receipt.
4.2.2 If (city) fails to make any payment within thirty (30) days
after the due date (firm) may, after giving fourteen (14)
days written notice to (city), suspend services under this
AGREEMENT until (firm) has been paid all amounts due him in
full.
SECTION 5. PERFORMANCE
In the performance of the services hereunder, (firm) shall exercise
that degree of skill and care as require4 by customarily accepted
professional practice and procedure. (Firm) also accepts the re—
lationship of trust and confidence established between it and (city)
by this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 6. INSURANCE
During the performance of the work covered by this AGREEMENT, (firm)
shall maintain for (firm’s) protection the following insurance;
-------
statutory workmen’s compensation coverage; general liability insur-
ance, including bodily injury, personal injury and property damage;
and automobile liability insurance, including bodily injury and
property damage. (Firm) shall maintain general liability insurance
which shall incluse contractual liability coverage, waiver of subro-
gation by the insurance carrier against (city) and where there is
a claim against both (city) and (firm) which is covered by (firm’s)
general liability insurance, then (firm’s) general liability insur-
ance shall be prime insurance as to (city’s) insurance. (Firm)
shall also secure and maintain professional liability insurance
coveraage for its services under this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 7. TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION
(City) may terminate or suspend all or a portion of (firm’s) ser-
vices under this AGREEMENT provided (city) gives (firm) thirty (3.0)
days written notice, however, the thirty (30) days written notice
requirement shall not be applicable if the termination or suspension
is caused by (firm’s) breach of its obligations under this AGREEMENT.
(Firm) may terminate the services being provided under this AGREE-
MENT should (city) fail to substantially perform in accordance with
the terms of this AGREEMENT or violate the payment terms in Section
4 or does not permit (firm) to carry out its obligations hereunder.
In the event of any termination or suspension (firm) shall be enti-
tled to Lull payment to the time of termination plus reasonable
charges for the services performed to execute an orderly termination.
SECTION 8. FORCE MAJEURE
Neither party shall be considered in default in performance of its
obligations hereunder to the extent that performance of such obli-
gations, or any of them, is delayed or prevented by Force Majeure.
Force Majeure shall include, but not be limited to hostilities, re-
volution, civil commotion, strikes, epidemic, accident, fire, flood,
wind, earthquake, explosion, blockage or embargo, lack of or failure
of transportation facilities, or any law, proclamation, regulation
or ordinance, demand or requirement of any Government or Governmental
agency having or claiming to have jurisdiction over the work or with
respect to materials purchased for the work, or over the parties
hereto, or other act of Government, or any of God, or any cause
whether of the same or different nature, existing or future; pro-
vided that the cause, whether or not enumerated in this Section, is
beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the party
seeking relief under this Section.
SECTION 9. DOCUMENTS
All original drawings, estimates, specifications, and field date
will become the property of (city) upon final payment by (city).
If these documents are changed and/or reused without approval or
adaptation by (city), (firm) shall have no liability to anyone for
any damage or loss caused as a result of the reuse and/or change.
(Firm) shall indemnify and hold (city) harmless from all such damages,
losses and incurred expenses. (Firm) may retain record copies of
all such documents as well as working papers, notes, and diaries
of its employees.
-------
INTERVIEW EVALUATION RESULTS WORKSHEET
NtJtIBER OF RAUKINGS
PROPOSAL
1st
PLACE
2nd
PLACE
3rd
PLACE
(a
)
(b)
(c
)
Point Calculations
Overall Interview Rankinos
1st:
2nd:
3rd: ____________
:
3
x
(a)
+
2
x
(b)
+ 1 x
Cc)
=
:
3
x
(a)
+
2
x
(b)
+ I x
(c)
:
3
x
(a)
+
2
x
(b)
+
1 x
Cc)
=
------- |