|
Process-Related Issues
|
|
1. The option for companies to
offer proposals for 5 year increments needs to be reconsidered.
|
|
|
2. The Citys tonnage projections
are inaccurate. It will be difficult to put together a response
if numbers are not clarified. In particular, page 31 of the
document underestimates what the real waste quantities are.
|
|
|
3. Is there an intent to require
a host municipality agreement? It should be clear that this
is different than a willing host agreement. This needs to
be clearly stated in the documents.
|
|
4. This is a very tight time
line. The period for construction will be 18 months, Keele
Valley closes in 2002, so there is little time for any glitches.
|
|
|
REOI/RFP Criteria Issues
|
|
5. Credibility and past experience
should be enough at the REOI stage.
|
|
6. Some companies may not want
competitors to know where sites are located at the REOI stage.
Is there a possibility of keeping the locations confidential?
|
|
7. Life cycle analysis will be
used to compare landfill to incineration. Will this criteria
also be used to compare diversion and disposal?
|
|
|
8. It is not clear how RFP evaluation
criteria can be reevaluated/refined. Criteria refinement is
not appropriate as industry needs a clear picture of the problem
and the Citys needs from the outset in order to respond.
|
|
9. Will an evaluation of alternative
proposals be done before looking into the price envelope?
|
|
Consultation Related Issues
|
|
10. Consultation has already
been carried out during site specific approvals processes.
The City needs to clearly describe the consultation that will
take place around the short list of sites
|
|
Diversion Related Issues
|
|
11. Define diversion.
|
| 12. How will the
city account for the possibility that its aggressive diversion
targets may not be met? |
|
New and Emerging Technologies
Related Issues
|
|
13. There are no economies of
scale to be gained in the new & emerging technologies
category, as the tonnages are too small.
|
|
14. Locking the city into a long
term contracts for new and emerging technologies does not
make sense, as these technologies will not be so new in 20
years. Pilots or shorter time frame increments could be considered.
|
|
|
Partnership Related Issues
|
|
15. Will options for partnering
be evaluated within this process? How? At what point?
|
|
|
Other Comments
|
|
16. The market is looking for
a strong commitment from the other regions if they wish to
join this process. The City should underscore the significance
of a commitment.
|
|
It is the Citys intent to provide
responses to each of these issues. A complete issues and responses
document will be issued immediately following the conclusion
of the consultations regarding the Stage One (Draft) Planning
Document.
|
