Roll-out Carts

1. Roll-out Carts Proactive Replacement Programs

2. Outline – Proactive Replacement Program • Background • What (is proactive replacement)? • Why (proactive replacement)? • When (to implement proactive replacement)? • Issues/Benefits with Proactive Replacement • Case Study – City of Los Angeles • RFP vs. Bid • Cart Specifications

3. Background - Carts • Roll-out Carts introduced in 1969 • Variety of Programs across the country • Maturity of Cart Programs • Life of Carts - Conditions which affect cart life • Decision point for every City (County)

4. What (is proactive replacement)? • Systematically replacing roll-out carts throughout City (or area) based on age and condition of carts, as opposed to sporadic daily replacement from residents’ requests • Proactive replacement based on analysis of existing condition of carts in conjunction with previous program rollout • Other Causes of failure?

5. Why (proactive replacement)? • Threshold of “catastrophic” failure • Choose threshold to determine break even cost analysis. Typically 4% - 5% annual failure • Cost of staff: drivers, phone operators • Cost of equipment: trucks, carts, parts • Distinguish between types of failure: age of carts, trucks, unusual circumstances, etc. • Detriment to Service – Should the burden of repair be placed on the resident? • Residents not sure whether they should call – will they be charged?

6. Why (proactive replacement)? • Consistency of Carts: Efficiencies, Aesthetics • Better presence within the City • Ideal time to make other changes to the program, re-educate • Safety – residents and drivers

7. When (implement proactive replacement)? • Break even cost analysis – money talks • Before a change of staff of drivers and operators to handle daily requests • Typically 10 – 15 years after initial cart implementation • Allow time for RFP/Bid, coordinating distribution and retrieval, and citywide announcements

8. Issues with Proactive Replacement • Up Front Cost – Large capital outlay, although it can be phased in • Assembly and Distribution – Added task of picking up old containers - personnel • Cart for Cart – Resident receives new cart when old cart is turned in • Handling old carts (large scale) – Recycled material, disassembly, washing, grinding, etc. • New Cart “Fever” – Once residents know about new carts, will call for replacement of their damaged cart

9. Benefits of Proactive Replacement • Overall Cost Savings – Replacement efficiency • Personnel allocation • Re-educate the residents • Consistent Carts and components • Implement new technology – CCIS – asset allocation/database of service calls – GIS – pinpoint problem areas • Audit the City – Much easier during replacement program – determine non-paying residents • Make other changes to system

10. Case Study: City of L.A. • Background • # of Households: 720,000 • Area: 447 square miles • Residential Collection Trucks: 650 • # of Roll-out Carts: 2.1 million units, 6 manufacturers, 3 cart system – Refuse, Recycling, Yard Waste • Diversion: 45% • Once per week Collection

11. Case Study: City of L.A. (cont) • Cart Implementation: 1991, 1994, 1997 • Cart Failures – graph

12. Cart Failure Rate

13. Case Study: City of L.A. (cont) • Failure exceeded threshold of 5% • Proactive Replacement Program – Phase in new carts by district (6) – replace oldest carts first – 10 to 12 year cycle • One Cart Supplier • Matching Compatibility of Trucks with Carts • Implement CCIS – Bar codes, asset tracking, account tracking, information to improve system • Setup separate facility to assemble, distribute, return old carts, clean, grind

14. Case Study: City of L.A. (cont) • Inherently conducting audit during distribution and retrieval of carts • Change size of yard waste carts • RFQ and Bid: Competitive price for long term contract

15. RFP vs. Bid • Every City different – bylaws, charter, rules • City Perspective: • Bid: Detail specifications, lowest responsive bidder • RFP: Program outline, point system, allows options and creativity • If City knows desired specifications and looking for lowest price to meet those specifications, bid is the most effective option • If City is open to different types of options and wants to evaluate bids on several criteria, RFP is best option

16. RFP vs. Bid • RFP allows flexibility in choosing the vendor that provides the most value • RFP allows City to prioritize or weight parameters • RFP: Do not allow price negotiations • Vendor’s perspective – depends on business model and approach as cart manufacturer • Vendors that offer value package prefer RFP • Vendors with lowest manufacturing costs and limited overhead prefer bids • RFQ

17. Cart Specifications • Three Ingredients: Design, Processing, Material • Design: Product features – compatibility, safety, user-friendly, aesthetics • Processing: Not only type but equipment technology, processing expertise • Material: Correct material for process and application, Consistency, Additives • Integrity of Cart vendor vs. Integrity of Cart

18. Cart Specifications (cont) • Suggestions • Understand what is needed/desired in design, processing, and material of cart • Use references (not just supplied by vendor) – understand warranty (procedure), failures, service, lead times, etc. • Parameters of vendor: financial stability, capacity, lawsuits, etc. • Identify and contact resin and additives suppliers • Testing: applicable to your City • Truck Compatibility • If RFP – weight each category