Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management (TIRM) Process - Identification of Top-Qualified Proposals for Proven Disposal Capacity (City Council on February 29, March 1 and 2, 2000, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The Works Committee recommends: (1) the adoption of the report dated February 22, 2000, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and (2) that as part of the due diligence process, the Chair of the Works Committee be requested to write to each of the municipalities named in the documents for principal or contingency sites, informing them that the City is investigating the use of their sites and will be contacting them in due course to solicit their comments. The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to: (1) report directly to Council for its meeting on February 29, 2000, on: (i) as much information as can be made public at this time with respect to the evaluation criteria used to calculate the ranking of the proposals; (ii) all the locations of the contingency sites; and (iii) how the willingness of the host community has been, would be or could be incorporated into the due diligence process as it proceeds; and (2) submit brief bi-monthly reports to the Committee on the progress of the City’s diversion and recycling projects in achieving the 50 percent diversion target. The Works Committee submits the following report (February 22, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services: Purpose: The purpose of this report is to seek City Council adoption of the recommended list of top-qualified proposals in connection with Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management ("TIRM") Process Request for Proposals ("RFP") for Proven Disposal Capacity, and to request authority to proceed to Stage 4 (due diligence and contract negotiations) of the TIRM Process. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: The financial implications of the TIRM Process will be dependent on the integrated waste management strategy selected for the City including diversion, disposal and emerging technologies. The cost analysis will form part of the June 2000 report to the Works Committee and the Policy and Finance Committee. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the proposals from the following five qualified Respondents to the TIRM Request for Proposals for Proven Disposal Capacity be identified as the final group of top-qualified proposals and, as such, be advanced to Stage 4 (due diligence and contract negotiations) of the TIRM Process: - BFI Waste Systems of North America Inc.; - Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority; - Green Lane Landfill; - Rail Cycle North; and - Republic Services of Canada Inc.; and, subject to the approval of Recommendation No. (1), it is further recommended that: (2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to proceed to conduct the necessary due diligence reviews of the disposal sites identified in the proposals of the top-qualified Respondents and to conduct contract negotiations with the top-qualified Respondents, as contained in Recommendation No. (1), and to report on the outcome of the negotiations and provide recommendations in the form of a proposed award of contract(s) with one or more of the top-qualified proposals; (3) the recommendations contained in this report proceed to the City Council meeting scheduled for February 29, March 1 and 2, 2000; and (4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Background: At its meeting of September 28, 29, and 30, 1999, City Council approved the issuance of an RFP for Proven Disposal Services. The RFP was subsequently issued on October 5, 1999, to the seven qualified that had successfully met the requirements of the TIRM Request for Expressions of Interest. The RFP for Disposal Services closed on December 15, 1999. Prior to the closure date one of the qualified Respondents, AGRA Resource Management Consortium, elected to withdraw from the RFP Process and did not submit an RFP. A second Respondent, Ref-Fuel Canada Ltd., did submit an RFP proposal but did not provide one of the mandatory commercial requirements. City Council subsequently directed the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conclude the processing of their submission. The TIRM Process was initiated on October 2, 1998, when City Council provided the following direction to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services: “…immediately proceed to engage the marketplace to secure solid waste management options including waste diversion and disposal capacity to meet the City’s long-term requirements through a Request for Expressions of Interest and Request for Proposals process based on the work undertaken in the planning process to date, but without proceeding to the submission of an environmental assessment.” (Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of The Works and Utilities Committee). In addition, City Council provided direction on a comprehensive range of policy and operational matters, which are summarized below: - the establishment of a 50 percent diversion rate by the year 2006 or sooner; - inclusion of potential export to the United States; - inclusion of Energy from Waste (“EFW”) technology as a marketplace option; - engagement of Regional governments in the Greater Toronto Area as potential partners with Toronto for future disposal capacity contracts; - active consideration of potential partnership proposals with Toronto that may contain a range of options including transfer of ownership or leasing arrangements; and - preparation of a planning process to engage the marketplace that includes public and industry consultation and development of multi-faceted evaluation criteria. Comments: RFP submissions from the following five qualified Respondents underwent an evaluation based on the criteria established in the RFP document: Respondent Proposed Disposal Facility Location BFI Waste Systems of North America Inc. Arbor Hills Landfill, Salem (“BFI”) Township, Michigan, USA Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill (“Essex-Windsor”) Site, Town of Essex, Ontario Green Lane Landfill (“Green Lane”) Green Lane Landfill Site, Elgin County, Ontario Rail Cycle North (“RCN”) Adams Mine Landfill, Kirkland Lake, Ontario Republic Services of Canada Inc. (“Republic”) Carleton Farms Landfill, Wayne County, Michigan, USA Attachment A to this report provides a description of each Respondent, the haul mode, the location of the disposal site, and a description of the proposed contingency sites. Respondents have provided contingency sites in response to Section 3.0 of the RFP document (P. B-6), which requires them to provide a “Proposed Service Plan” that describes how waste is to be managed from time of delivery/acceptance at the respective transfer station(s) to the time of ultimate disposal. One of the components of the Proposed Service Plan is “contingencies that will be in place to ensure uninterrupted service to Toronto”. Contingency sites will only be utilized in the event that service to the site under contract is temporarily disrupted, for example, by an event such as a storm which could impact service delivery. Contingency sites will not be considered as locations to receive Toronto’s residual solid waste on a regular ongoing basis. Summary of the Evaluation Methodology: The RFP document required Respondents to provide data in a series of input forms. The data characterized the proposals in terms of their environmental, GTA/Ontario benefits and financial cost performances. The data allowed the performances to be considered under the following terms: 5, 10, 15 and 20 years. The priority weighting points (established in the RFP Document) and assigned to the performances of the proposals allowed the proposals to be comparatively evaluated. Consideration of the outcome of the comparative evaluation resulted in the identification of the group of top-qualified proposals. The weighted performance scores for each of the proposals indicates that no proposal is significantly disadvantageous in relation to the average performance of the group of proposals. Each proposal submission has been determined to be fully responsive to the RFP and contained the information necessary to conduct the Stage 3 comparative evaluation. Identification of Individual Proposals’ Performance Per Tonne of Waste Managed: The data (e.g., total energy resource consumed per tonne of waste managed) submitted by Respondents (or, default data, used in the circumstances where the City did not accept the performance data claims by Respondents) was transferred to a series of performance per tonne tables; one for each of the 15 performance factors. Where required, performance per tonne data was transformed, using specific algorithms (as were established in the RFP document) to determine the total value for the performance factor in question. For example, for the “greenhouse gases” performance factor, total performance is the sum of the greenhouse gases emitted in waste transportation and greenhouse gases emitted at the disposal facility, net of any greenhouse gas emission “off-set” credits accrued from energy recovery (e.g., landfill gas capture). Calculation of Weighted Scores: The “z-score” statistical method was used to assign the priority weighting points for each of the performance factors to each of the proposals’ performance per tonne. The z-score method is a refinement of the use of a “bell-curve”,