Addenda to Item 7

Page 1 of 33
Appendices
36 | P a g e
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 2 of 33
Appendix A
RFP Addendums 1 through 5
37 | P a g e
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 3 of 33
This page left blank for double sided printing.
38 | P a g e
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 4 of 33
Addendum #1, Request for Proposals, Transportation and Disposal Services
Date: November 5, 2013
To:
All Prospective Proposers
From: Humboldt Waste Management Authority (HWMA)
Re:
Addendum #1: Mandatory Site Meeting, November 15, 2013, Change of Venue
*************************************************************************************
This addendum #1 provides further information and clarification regarding the mandatory meeting and
site visits to the Transfer Stations, scheduled for November 15, 2013. In the Request for Proposals (RFP)
for Transportation and Disposal Services released on November 1, 2013 by HWMA, it was stated on
page 48 that,
“The Authority will hold a mandatory PROPOSERS' meeting and site visit to the Hawthorne Street Transfer Station
and at the two Satellite Transfer Station Facilities on November 15, 2013 to view the transfer stations, discuss the
Agreement conditions and scope of services, and other operational requirements. Questions provided in writing in
advance of the meeting, as well as questions raised at the time of the meeting, will be answered to the extent
possible.
The meeting and site visits are scheduled from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on the date above. The PROPOSERS' meeting
will be held first at the Hawthorne Street facility, then proceed to the McKinleyville Transfer Station and end at the
ERD Fortuna Transfer Station. Transportation to and from the sites must be provided by the PROPOSER. All
PROPOSERS are permitted to have up to two (2) persons participate in the transfer facility site visits.”
The HWMA provides the following clarification to the above statement, as the location of the mandatory
PROPOSERS’ meeting has changed, along with the sequence of site visits for the day.
“The Authority shall hold a mandatory PROPOSERS' meeting and site visit on November 15, 2013.
PROPOSERS shall meet first at the McKinleyville Community Services District Conference Room 1
(McKinleyville CSD) located at 1656 Sutter Road, McKinleyville, CA beginning at 10:00 a.m. As previously
stated in the RFP, questions provided in writing in advance of the meeting, as well as questions raised at
the time of the meeting, will be answered to the extent possible.
From the McKinleyville CSD, PROPOSERS shall proceed to the Humboldt Sanitation Transfer Station
located at 2585 Central Avenue, McKinleyville for a site tour of that Satellite facility. Then, the tour shall
1
The McKinleyville CSD administrative office is located on Sutter Road, about 50 yards east of Central Avenue in McKinleyville.
Best way to get there for those coming from the north is to take the School Road exit off Hwy 101, go east to Central Ave, and
turn left on Central Ave, go one block north on Central Ave to Sutter Road (Chevron Station is on the corner), and make a right
onto Sutter Road, and the McKinleyville CSD office is on the right.
Alternatively, if you’re travelling from the south, you can take the Central Ave exit off of Hwy 101, and stay on Central until you
reach Sutter Road (the third light in McKinleyville as you’re going north on Central), then make a right on Sutter Road (Chevron
Station is on the corner), and the CSD office will be on the right.
1|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 5 of 33
proceed to the Hawthorne Street Transfer Station and finish at the Eel River Disposal Transfer Station
located at 965 Riverwalk Drive, Fortuna.
Transportation to and from the sites must be provided by the PROPOSER. All PROPOSERS are permitted
to have up to two (2) persons participate in the Transfer Station facilities site visit.”
The tentative timeline for the day is:
10:00 a.m. –
McKinleyville Community Services District office (conference room),
1656 Sutter Road, McKinleyville – meet as a group, lay out ground rules for tour, go over
general questions.
11:00 a.m. –
Humboldt Sanitation Transfer Station, 2685 Central Ave, McKinleyville – facility tour.
12:00 p.m. –
HWMA Hawthorne Street Transfer Station, 1059 W Hawthorne Street, Eureka – facility
tour.
1:00 p.m. –
Eel River Disposal Transfer Station, 965 Riverwalk Drive, Fortuna –facility tour, and end
tour between 1:30 p.m. and 2 p.m.
**********
If PROPOSERS have any questions regarding the meeting or tour of the Transfer Station facilities, please
feel free to contact the Authority’s consultant, Bruce Murphy, IntelliWaste by email at
[email protected], or by phone at (415) 898-6121.
2|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 6 of 33
Addendum #2
Humboldt Waste Management Authority (HWMA)
Revision to RFP Schedule
December 5, 2013
Important Notice to All PROPOSERS
“Section 1.7, Procurement Process and Schedule” of the RFP has been revised as follows.
The HWMA has revised the milestone dates and activities during the proposal process as shown
below. The previous date changed is strikethrough and the new date is in bold and double undelined.

Authority Board approved development of an RFP on June 30, 2013.

Authority releases RFP on November 1, 2013. RFP and Proposed Agreement will be
listed on Authority website at http://www.hwma.net.

Conduct interactive communications between the Authority and respondents,
including one official, mandatory site visit to the Hawthorne Street Transfer Station
and Satellite Transfer Stations for all PROPOSERS on November 15, 2013.

Written question and answer period during the proposal preparation period
(November 2 to December 6, 2013 January 3, 2014). Deadline for written questions
from PROPOSERS to IntelliWaste at their email address [email protected] by
5:00 P.M. on December 6, 2013 December 20, 2013.

Amendment(s) to the RFP and Responses to Questions will be issued no later than
December 11, 2013 December 20, 2013.

PROPOSERS submit proposals to Humboldt Waste Management Authority, Attn: Ms.
Jill Duffy by 3:00 P.M, December 20, 2013 January 3, 2014.

Potential PROPOSERS interviews before the RFP Evaluation Committee during
January/February 2014. Panel Evaluation and ranking of all proposals to be
completed by February 14, 2014.

Authority Board discussion of proposals at March 13, 2014 board meeting and
further discussion and announcement of recommended Contractor(s) by Authority
Board on April 10, 2014 .

Approximately 21 days to resolve any Agreement issues and sign an Agreement by
May 1, 2014.

Authority Board approval of Agreement(s) on May 8, 2014.

PROPOSER commences service on June 1, 2014.
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 7 of 33
Addendum #3
Humboldt Waste Management Authority (HWMA)
Responses to
RFP Questions from Proposers
December 10, 2013
NOTE: any words added or removed by HWMA from submitted questions are indicated by brackets [ ].
In some cases words were added to make a given question clearer, and in other cases, proposer-specific
information was removed, to help protect the identity of potential proposers.
Question #1: Section 1.1 page 1 fifth paragraph and Section 3.4.2 page 31, second sentence: Will the
Authority be obligated to deliver all waste under its control or authority that has not been recycled,
composted or removed from the waste steam to reach AB939, AB 341 or its 75% recovery goals?
HWMA Response: HWMA is willing to obligate, for delivery to the selected proposer/contractor(s), all or
a portion of the solid waste under its control that has not otherwise been diverted for a legitimate nondisposal use (such as re-use, recycling, composting or anaerobic digestion).
See RFP page 2, paragraph 3: “…the Authority may, at its sole discretion, select and enter into
Agreements with one or more Contractors for all or a portion of the transportation and disposal
of the Permitted Solid Waste. Likewise, the Authority, at its sole discretion, may select and enter
into separate Agreements with one or more transportation companies, and one or more disposal
companies.”
Question #2: Section 3.1 page 26 second paragraph: This statement appears to ask for scope of work
and rates be provided for both Anderson and Dry Creek landfill. What if the proposer wants to use just
one landfill in their proposal, are they required to propose using both locations?
HWMA Response: Section 3.1 of the RFP is intended to provide instructions to transportation-only
proposers. Transportation-only proposers are required, at a minimum, to provide a rate to both
Anderson and Dry Creek landfills, in addition to any other desired/identified location(s). Proposers who
propose a disposal-only option or a combined transportation and disposal option are not obligated to
provide transportation and/or disposal costs to Dry Creek or Anderson Landfills.
Question #3: Section 3.1 page 26 third paragraph: If the proposer isn’t the operator of any of these
transfer facilities how will they be able to provide weight slips on trailers loaded for transport to the
disposal facility?
HWMA Response: For purposes of this RFP, assume that weight slips will be available for all loaded
trailers at HWMA transfer facilities, including satellite facilities.
Question #4: Section 5.2.4 page 37: The authority in the bullets 3 and 4 are asking for information on
the financial information. It appears that proposers can do one or the other to meet this requirement, is
that a correct interpretation?
1|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 8 of 33
HWMA Response: Yes
Question #5: Section 5.2 Company Description and Qualifications, contains several sub-sections (5.2.1
through 5.2.7) that seek information on the proposer. Although the sections generally seek information
about the proposer (singular), many sections use the wording “Company(ies),” which may be plural.
This makes it unclear as to how to properly respond if a sole company is going to respond to and use
sub-contractor(s) for certain aspects of the Agreement. Is it correct to answer sections 5.2.1 through
5.2.6 in the singular as the sole company that is going to sign the Agreement and identify the subcontractors in its response to section 5.2.7?
HWMA Response: If a single company is proposing, that company needs to provide a description of
their qualifications. If a company proposes to utilize a subcontractor (e.g., for transportation services),
then the information requested in Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.7 of the RFP should also be submitted for
that subcontractor .
Question #6: Section 5.2.4 page 37: If a proposer plans to engage a CPA to provide the ratios asked for
in Section 5.2.4 (instead of providing financial statements), then Proposer and the HWMA need to sign a
CPA-prepared Agreed-upon Procedures engagement letter (as required by the AICPA, AT Section 201).
HWMA Response: Based on our interpretation of AICPA, AT Section 201, in the case of a proposer who
hires a CPA to provide financial ratios in lieu of presenting financial statements, as specified in Section
5.2.4 of the RFP, HMWA would not be considered as the engaged practitioner/CPA’s “client,” but as a
“specified party.” Furthermore, per AT Section 201.07,
“…if the practitioner is not able to communicate directly with all of the specified parties, the
practitioner may satisfy these requirements by applying any one or more of the following or
similar procedures.
•
Compare the procedures to be applied to written requirements of the
specified parties… “
Given the fact that HWMA as a “specified party” will not be able to communicate directly with a CPA
who may be hired by a proposer to provide financial ratios prior to submittal of a proposal response,
HWMA recommends that a CPA engaged in this process refer to HWMA’s written requirements in the
RFP document, found in Section 5.2.4 of the RFP.
Question #7: Does HWMA prefer to sign the engagement letter before the response is due so it will
have the information available or sign after a proposer has been short-listed (meaning it will not have
this information in the original response)? Will the Proposer be responsible for all the costs associated
with the CPA report?
HWMA Response: As stated in the answer to Question #6, the engagement letter is an agreement
between the CPA and the proposer. Proposers who do not provide all information (such as financial
ratios and/or financial statements) requested in the RFP may be disqualified, at the sole discretion of
HWMA. All proposal preparation costs are to be borne solely by the proposer without exception (see
Section 1.5, Proposal Costs in the RFP).
2|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 9 of 33
Question #8: Section 5.4 page 40, second paragraph: Will HWMA provide a sample report or what they
would like to receive for monthly and/or annual reporting requirements.
HWMA Response: The HWMA will work with the selected contractor during the Agreement negotiation
period to establish the monthly and/or annual reporting requirements.
Question #9: Section 5.5.1 page 40: It isn’t clear if the Performance Bond required is for one year which
renews every year or for a bond for the entire 10 years of the contract. A 10 year bond is problematic
since Surety’s will only provide annual bonds.
HWMA Response: The performance bond shall be renewed annually.
Question #10: Because the exposure decreases with time will the Authority consider reducing the value
of the bond as time goes on?
HWMA Response: No.
Question #11: Could you please provide the current hauling costs per ton or load from Bettendorf from
(a) Hawthorne Transfer Station, and (b) Humboldt Sanitation’s Transfer Station-to Dry Creek Landfill and
to Anderson Landfill. A breakdown of the fee by haul and fuel charge will be appreciated.
HWMA Response: Current hauling costs from Bettendorf Trucking per load are:
1) Hawthorne Street to Anderson Landfill - straight haul, $714.36 per load, with a 9.59% fuel
surcharge (fuel surcharge as of the 2nd half of November 2013)
2) Hawthorne Street to Anderson Landfill, with back haul, $661.04 per load, with a 5.27% fuel
surcharge (fuel surcharge as of the 2nd half of November 2013)
3) Hawthorne Street to Dry Creek Landfill - straight haul, $745.03 per load, with a 9.6% fuel
surcharge (as of the 2nd half of November 2013)
4) Hawthorne Street to Dry Creek Landfill – with back haul, $592.00 per load, with a 6.93% fuel
surcharge (as of the 2nd half of November 2013)
5) Humboldt Sanitation Transfer Station (McKinleyville) to Anderson Landfill – straight haul,
$688.86 per load, with a 10.49% fuel surcharge (as of the 2nd half of August 2013)
6) Humboldt Sanitation Transfer Station (McKinleyville) to Anderson Landfill – with back haul,
$638.82 per load, with a 5.46% fuel surcharge (as of the 2nd half of November 2013)
Question #12: Could you please provide the current hauling costs per ton or load from Eel River Disposal
from Eel River Transfer Station to Anderson Landfill, a breakdown of the fee by haul and fuel charge,
thanks.
HWMA Response: Current hauling costs per ton from Eel River Disposal’s Fortuna Transfer Station to the
Anderson Landfill are $45.14, based on a $28.34 per ton base operations rate, and a $16.80 per ton fuel
surcharge, as of October 2013
3|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 10 of 33
Question #13: Could you please provide the current hauling costs per ton or load from Humboldt
Sanitation from Humboldt Sanitation’s Transfer Station to Dry Creek Landfill and to Anderson Landfill. A
breakdown of the fee by haul and fuel charge.
HWMA Response: See answers provided to Question 11.
Question #14: Could you please provide the current tipping fee per ton at the Dry Creek Landfill and
Anderson Landfill?
HWMA Response: HWMA’s current tip fee at the Dry Creek Landfill, inclusive of all available discounts,
as of November 1, 2013, is $26.08 per ton.
HWMA’s current tip fee at the Anderson Landfill, effective January 1, 2013 through June 1, 2014, is
$20.75 per ton.
Question #15: What are the current disposal fees charged to the Authority by Anderson and Dry Creek
landfills?
HWMA Response: See answers to Question 14.
Question #16: The RFP states, “…the Agreement assigns the Contractor(s) the right to transport and
dispose the Authority’s Permitted Solid Waste during the Term of the Agreement, or for a ten (10) year
period with up to one (1) five (5) year Extension.“ The draft transfer/disposal contract is clear that there
is no minimum tonnage commitment. The reluctance to enter into another put or pay agreement is
understandable. Also, we understand that there may be additional resource recovery programs that
could reduce the amount of material available for disposal. However, the contract does not give the
contractor a clear right to transport and dispose of any of the Authority’s Permitted Solid Waste. Would
the Authority consider adding language to the contract that would commit all of the Authority’s
Permitted Solid Waste delivered to the Transfer Stations in excess of the current commitment of
tonnage to Dry Creek from June 1, 2014 to October 31, 2016 and all of the Authority’s Permitted Solid
Waste delivered to the Transfer Stations beginning November 1, 2016 through the end of the contract?
HWMA Response: Yes. Also, refer to response to Question # 1. Also, as stated in Section 4 of the RFP,
“Agreement(s) for Transportation and Disposal Services”:
“The Authority is interested in selecting a PROPOSER that is prepared to accept the provisions of
the Agreement in its existing form. PROPOSER may propose exceptions to the provisions.
Exceptions must be accompanied by recommended alternative language. If the exceptions to the
Authority’s Agreement are not acceptable to the Authority, the Authority may reject the proposal
regardless of its other merits. At the sole discretion of the Authority, all negotiations with a
particular PROPOSER may be limited to the PROPOSER’S exceptions and recommended
alternative Agreement language contained in its proposal”.
Question #17: The draft transfer/disposal contract defines Fuel Price Index as the lesser of the
Contractor’s average diesel fuel for the prior month or the average Fuel Price Index for California. This
4|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 11 of 33
seems unnecessarily complicated as one month you may be using the Contractor’s average as the index
and the next month the California index is used. Using the “lesser of” approach could under represent
the change in the Contractor’s actual cost. Additionally, the Contractor would have to produce
documentation of its fuel invoices. It is our experience that the index fairly represents the percentage
price changes month to month. The EIA also produces an average index for the month which would
eliminate the need for a calculation of the average of the last four indexes in the month. Instead of
using the “lesser of” approach would the Authority consider selecting one, either the Contractor’s
average cost or the monthly index?
HWMA Response: Yes. Proposers may propose alternate fuel price indices or fuel price adjustment
mechanisms to what is requested in the RFP. However, proposers should keep in mind that the number
and materiality of proposed exceptions to the draft agreement(s) may result in a lower ranking of a
given proposal.
Also, refer to HWMA responses to questions 32 and 33.
Question #18: The definition of Uncontrollable Circumstances in the draft transfer/disposal contract
references Section 9.6. Should the proper reference be to Section 9.8?
HWMA Response: Yes.
Question #19: Section 4.1.a of the draft transfer/disposal contract gives the Authority the exclusive right
to renew the contract for an additional 5 years. It is not clear whether the Contractor would have any
right to decline the extension. If the annual CPI adjustments do not keep pace with the Contractor’s
actual cost, the Contractor could be incurring losses at the time of the extension. To be fair, the
extension should be by mutual consent. Would the Authority consider modifying the language to make
it clear that the Contractor has the right to refuse the extension?
HWMA Response: Yes, HWMA is willing to consider alternate contract extension language. However,
HWMA recommends that proposers also respond to the scenario provided in the RFP: a 10 year contract
term with 5 additional years at HWMA’s sole discretion, to avoid a potential reduction in the proposer’s
score.
Question #20: Section 7.3 of the draft transfer/disposal contract limits an annual rate adjustment to the
Base Transportation Operations Rate equal to 75% of CPI and limits the adjustment to 3% with no floor.
It is not clear whether any excess over the 3% could be carried over to succeeding years. The reduction
to 75% of CPI seems arbitrary. How was this percentage determined? It is our experience in recent
years that the CPI percentage increases did not keep pace with our actual operating expense increases.
Limiting the percentage increase to 3% may affect the financial viability of the Contractor’s operation.
Would the Authority consider allowing the Contractor to propose the percent of CPI and the percentage
cap in the RFP?
HWMA Response: Yes, HWMA is willing to consider alternate CPI adjustment methodologies. However,
to avoid a reduction in the proposer’s score, HWMA recommends that proposers also respond to the
5|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 12 of 33
scenario provided in the RFP: annual adjustment to the Base Transportation Operation Rate of 75% of
CPI with a 3% maximum annual adjustment.
Question #21: In several places in the draft transfer/disposal contract Designated Disposal Facility is
used as a defined term. There is no definition of Designated Disposal Facility in this draft. The
Contractor’s facility should be designated as the disposal facility for all solid waste coming from the
three transfer stations.
HWMA Response: Comment noted - the term “Designated Disposal Facility” was not defined. The term
was an artifact of a previous draft of the agreement.
Question #22: Within RFP §5, Table 6 includes an entry for “Signed Addenda”, following “Executive
Summary”. What is the Authority’s expectation in differentiating the content of this proposal section
from the content of Proposal Form 2 – Addenda Receipt?
HWMA Response: Proposers are to fill and sign Addenda Form #2 and place it in their proposal, as
shown in Table 6.
Question #23: Would the Authority be interested in reviewing combined bids for transportation and
disposal services to other landfills besides Andersen and Dry Creek? If so, is the proposer required to
provide a quote for transportation and disposal to Andersen and Dry Creek, or can the bid consist solely
of transportation and disposal at a third site?
HWMA Response: Yes - refer to the Authority’s response to Question #2. Proposers submitting a
combined transportation and disposal proposal are under no obligation to propose services to Anderson
and Dry Creek landfills.
Question #24: Our Surety Company is confused by the Financial Guaranty Agreement within the
Agreement (Section 7.6) and Section 7.4, Bonds and Surety Instrument. She has not come across a
Financial Guaranty Agreement. Doesn’t the surety bonds provide a financial guaranty? Could you please
define the difference and the reasons why a Company should sign a Financial Guaranty Agreement?
HWMA Response: The Financial Guaranty Agreement is commonly used when procuring for long-term
solid waste management services. The requirement exists as a back stop in the event the company
defaults and the bonding company defaults. The proposer would provide further corporate surety in
such an event.
Question #25: The Performance Bond form (Form 1) is inconsistent with the Draft (Transportation)
Agreement Bonds and Surety Instrument Section 7.4 on page 18. In this section, an annually renewable
bond will be acceptable; however, Form 1 does not address that language. We would therefore want to
use the surety company’s Annually Renewable bond form. This would be consistent with the bond
section language and surety industry standard for long term contracts. Please confirm with the Authority
prior to the RFP due date that this is acceptable.
6|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 13 of 33
HWMA Response: In the event of inconsistent language between the RFP and agreement, proposers
should default to the agreement language, found in Section 7.4 of the Transportation Agreement (or
Section 7.4 of the Disposal Agreement or Section 8.4 of Transportation and Disposal Agreement).
Question #26: As a result, if performance bonding will be required for a limited transportation segment,
may a corporate surety bond in the form usually used by the issuing company for this kind of matter be
acceptable in the place of your attached form? How will acceptability of an alternative form of bond be
determined?
HWMA Response: See the Authority’s response to Question #25.
Question #27: In the award of a Transportation Contract under what circumstances would the Financial
Guaranty Agreement that is Exhibit 3 to the proposed contract be required?
HWMA Response: The Financial Guaranty, Exhibit 3, is required to be in force during the contract period
and any extension.
Question #28: The RFP calls for the Fuel Price Index to be determined based on the lesser of the
Contractor’s actual cost for diesel or the Department of Energy California wide average cost. The
{company name removed} is currently providing {company service reference removed} from {company
name removed} Transfer station with a Fuel Price Index based on its actual cost within Humboldt
County. Generally speaking, all energy costs in general, and diesel fuel costs in particular, in Humboldt
County exceed state and national averages and are generally some of the highest to be found. As a
result, this provision would cause the Fuel Rate reimbursement to almost always run below actual costs
since as a practical matter fuel is purchased where it is used. As a result, the index would not operate as
an intended adjustment to cover cost increases to hold the party’s relationship in place but would
function to slowing reduce the service provider’s returns. This may then require a proposer to make an
increase in the proposed base transportation rate to account for these not to be compensated for fuel
increases just to stay in the same place. Given the problems and unfairness that the reference to a state
wide average creates, will you eliminate the reference to the statewide average?
HWMA Response: Refer to the Authority’s response to Question #17.
Question #29: The RFP requires a transportation only performance bond of $700,000. However, this
appears to apply to a proposal to transport all or any portion of the solid waste. In a proposal
concerning just the transportation out of (for example) the Fortuna satellite transfer station, this is only
for about 12% of total volume and amounts to an estimated one trailer per day compared to the system
wide total of 10 and ½ per day. Clearly, risk is proportional to the size of the transportation
commitment. {Company Name Removed} has since 2006 provided all transportation service {Company
Name Removed} without the necessity of any performance bonding. At this point, {Company Name
Removed} is still seeking a quote for performance bonding of the required amount, however, it is
anticipated that the cost will be significant. Since the new cost of performance bonding may well need
to be added to increase the current Base Transportation Rate, would you eliminate this requirement for
7|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 14 of 33
a proposal from just a satellite transfer station based on the limited size of the service to be provided or
reduce it to some proportional level to the amount of service being provided?
HWMA Response: A lesser bond amount will be considered for limited transportation-only proposals.
Question #30: {Company Name Removed} current contract for transportation from the {Company Name
Removed}, {Company Name Removed} is required to have liability insurance limits of $3,000,000. It
appears that the cost of taking that coverage up to $10,000,000 with be about {number removed} per
year. Since the new cost of additional insurance may well end up being added to the current Base
Transportation Rate just to remain in the same place, would you keep the current $3,000,000 insurance
amount or otherwise make the amount of required liability insurance proposal from just a satellite
transfer station at some reduced and proportional level to the amount of service being provided?
HWMA Response: Similar to the response to question 29, lesser liability insurance limits will be
considered for limited transportation-only proposals.
Question #31: Part 5.6 d) of the sample contract says, “Transfer Trailer Container Loading: Satellite
Transfer Stations. By third party arrangements made with Satellite Transfer Station owners, the
Authority will arrange for the loading and weighing of Containers at Satellite Transfer Stations.” How
will this be accomplished and what is the nature of the anticipated third party arrangement?
HWMA Response: In that situation, a separate Agreement shall be made with the Satellite Transfer
Station owner.
Question #32: How will the Authority determine the best transportation component since different
companies may assume a different base rate of dollars per gallon? For example, if transportation
company A provides a fuel component based on a rate $3.90 per gallon and Transportation Company B
provides a fuel component based on $4.00 per gallon, will the Authority adjust the rates for equal
comparison and if so, how?
HWMA Response: As described in Section 6.2 of the RFP, proposed rates are one of several criteria by
which proposals will be evaluated. Also, refer to the answer to Question #33 for adjustments made
prior to the commencement of the agreement.
Question #33: Since the bids are due in December 2013, but the Agreement would not be effective until
June 2014, will the Authority allow a fuel adjustment on the first day of the Agreement or does the
transportation company need to take the risk of fuel price changes from December until June 2014?
HWMA Response: To protect proposers from fuel price changes after the proposal due date, the fuel
cost per gallon that a proposer submits in their rate proposal will be adjusted by HWMA according to
the change in the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s California weekly diesel fuel price index for
the time period between when proposals are due (i.e., January 3, 2014) and the commencement of the
agreement (i.e., June 1, 2014 or subsequent date).
8|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 15 of 33
Question #34: In the case of a proposer proposing transportation only and however is partnered with a
proposer for transportation and disposal, would the transportation only proposer still be required to
propose a quote to that same destination?
HWMA Response: Yes. Also, see answer to Question #2.
Question #35: In addendum #2, the 4th bullet, there are two dates listed, first January 1, 2014 and
second, December 20, 2013. Shouldn’t both of these be the December 20th date?
HWMA Response: The first sentence refers to the entire proposal preparation period (11/2/13 01/03/14). The second sentence refers to the deadline for questions (12/20/13).
9|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 16 of 33
Addendum #4
Humboldt Waste Management Authority (HWMA)
Revision to RFP Schedule
December 11, 2013
Important Notice to All PROPOSERS
“Section 1.7, Procurement Process and Schedule” of the RFP has been revised as follows.
The HWMA has revised the milestone dates and activities during the proposal process as shown
below. The revised date is in bold.

Deadline for written questions from PROPOSERS to IntelliWaste at their email
address [email protected] by 5:00 P.M. on December 13, 2013

Amendment(s) to the RFP and Responses to Questions from PROPOSERS will be
issued by the HWMA no later than December 20, 2013.
Revision to Addendum #3, Question #11.
The HWMA has revised the table in Question #11 as follows.
Question #11: Could you please provide the current hauling costs per ton or load from
Bettendorf from (a) Hawthorne Transfer Station, and (b) Humboldt Sanitation’s Transfer
Station‐to Dry Creek Landfill and to Anderson Landfill. A breakdown of the fee by haul and
fuel charge will be appreciated.
HWMA Response: Please refer to the following table for current hauling costs per load (fuel
surcharge rates are indicated in parenthesis, and are based on November 2013 Indexes):
Anderson Landfill
HWMA
Humboldt
Sanitation
Dry Creek Landfill
Straight Haul
Back Haul
Straight Haul
Back Haul
$711.36
(+$66.92)
$688.86
(+$72.26)
$661.04
(+$32.52)
$638.82
(+$34.88)
$745.03
(+$66.70)
$592.00
($+38.25)
per ALF rate*
per ALF rate*
*Due to current contractual obligations, Humboldt Sanitation loads are almost exclusively
shipped to Anderson Landfill. In those instances where tonnage from Humboldt Sanitation
must be shipped to Dry Creek Landfill, the costs are similar to those for Anderson Landfill
and therefore the rate remains unchanged.
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 17 of 33
Addendum #5
Humboldt Waste Management Authority (HWMA)
December 20, 2013
Important Notice to All PROPOSERS
1) Correction to Addendum No. 3 and 2) Responses to Additional Questions
Notation/Clarification to Addendum No. 3, Question #33 has been revised as shown below.
The word “percentage” change was left out of the original response and is shown below and
double underlined.
Question #33: Since the bids are due in December 2013, but the Agreement would not be
effective until June 2014, will the Authority allow a fuel adjustment on the first day of the
Agreement or does the transportation company need to take the risk of fuel price changes from
December until June 2014?
HWMA Response (Revised): To protect proposers from fuel price changes after the proposal
due date, the fuel cost per gallon that a proposer submits in their rate proposal will be adjusted
by HWMA according to the percentage (%) change in the U.S. Energy Information
Administration’s California weekly diesel fuel price index for the time period between when
proposals are due (i.e., January 3, 2014) and the commencement of the agreement (i.e., June 1,
2014 or subsequent date).
New Questions Received By Friday, December 13, 2013 Deadline
Question #36: Pages 63 through 68 of the RFP contain “Appendix C” Transportation and
Disposal Rate Forms.” Page 65 contains the Transportation Rate Form, and Page 67 contains
the Disposal Rate Form. Also contained at the bottom of page 67 is a place to fill in the “Initial
Diesel Fuel Price per Gallon.” A similar statement is not contained on the Transportation Rate
Form on page 65. Are all proposers who propose either transportation or transportation and
disposal combined supposed to fill out the initial diesel fuel price per gallon on page 67?
HWMA Response: Proposers who submit proposals for Transportation-Only and/or combined
Transportation and Disposal Services must fill out the line documenting their initial price for
diesel fuel used to complete the required Rate Form(s). Proposers who submit a Disposal-only
proposal are not required to disclose their initial diesel fuel cost since this metric applies to
transportation related services only.
Questions #37 & #38: HWMA’s Addendum #3, Questions 32 and 33 may need further
clarification. Although there will likely be small fuel purchase price differences between
potential transportation companies, it will likely not be significant. However, there may be
large differences between the potential transportation companies’ proposals based on the
initial fuel price assumed/contained in their proposal. For example, Transportation Company A
1|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 18 of 33
(“TCA”) may use a $3.00 cost of fuel and rely upon an initial large adjustment (or fuel
surcharge) prior to the start of the contract in June (per Addendum #3, question 33 response),
while Transportation Company B (“TCB”) may use a more-current $4.00 cost of fuel. Using the
fuel prices of TCA and TCB, the transportation bids could be significantly different and hard to
evaluate. To illustrate, assuming 5 MPG and a distance of 350 miles, TCA would include a fuel
charge of $210 (350/5*$3.00), while TCB would include $280 (350/5*$4.00) in their
proposals. However, at the beginning of the contract, both would be paid the same, even
though TCA's proposal appears to be 33% less than TCB. This issue would be eliminated if each
hauler were to assume the same fuel purchase price.
HWMA Response: Please refer to our response to revised Question #33 above.
Question 39: When HWMA evaluates the proposals, how will it equalize the assumed fuel
purchase price between transportation companies?
HWMA Response: Please refer to our response to revised Question #33 above.
Question 40: Will HWMA publish a standard fuel price (e.g. November 2013 price) for all
transportation companies to use in their proposal such that the proposals will reflect similar
fuel rate assumptions and the adjustment at the beginning of the contract will be equal?
HWMA Response: Please refer to our response to revised Question #33 above.
Question 41: “Since the Contractor will be the Corporation and the surety company will be
providing a surety bond, who is the Guarantor, the Corporation or the executive (person) of the
Corporation, such as a personal guarantee?”
HWMA Response: In the case of the Performance Bond and Financial Guarantee Agreement,
the Corporation is the Guarantor.
2|Page
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 19 of 33
This page left blank for double sided printing.
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 20 of 33
Appendix B
Proposer Response to Subcommittee Questions
39 | P a g e
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 21 of 33
This page left blank for double sided printing.
40 | P a g e
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 22 of 33
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 23 of 33
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 24 of 33
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 25 of 33
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 26 of 33
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 27 of 33
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 28 of 33
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 29 of 33
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 30 of 33
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 31 of 33
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 32 of 33
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda
Page 33 of 33
April 10, 2014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Item 7) Addenda