FC- 10078, Solid Waste Management...

FC- 10078, Solid Waste Management Services Addendum No. 2 January 10, 2018 ADDENDUM NO. 2 This Addendum No. 2 forms a part of the Request for Proposals (“RFP”) and modifies the original solicitation package and any prior Addenda as noted below and is issued to incorporate the following:

1. Responses to Questions: Total of one-hundred fifty-three (153) questions, attached hereto as Attachment No. 1.

2. Revision: Part 1, paragraph 8, Proposal Guarantee should be replaced in its entirety as follows:

“Each Proponent is required to furnish a Proposal Guarantee in the amount of one-hundred thousand dollars and zero cents ($100,000.00). At the option of the Proponent, the Proposal Guarantee may also be cash, a certified check payable to the order of City or a Proposal Bond attached to this RFP as Form 8. A surety executing a Proposal Bond must meet the requirements set forth in Appendix B; Insurance and Bonding Requirements included in this RFP.

Each Proponent agrees that, if it is awarded the Contract and fails to execute it and provide all other documents required to consummate the transaction within fifteen (15) days of the award, City will retain the Proposal Guarantee as liquidated damages and not as a penalty.”

3. FORM 4.2, Certification of Bonding Ability: FORM 4.2, Certification of Bonding Ability is hereby modified and attached as Attachment No. 2, FORM 4.2, Certification of Bonding Ability (Revised 01.04.2018). Additionally, remove all references of “N/A” as it relates to Form 4.2 in this RFP.

4. FORM 8, Certification of Bonding Ability: FORM 8, Proposal Bond is hereby modified and attached as Attachment No. 3, FORM 8, Proposal Bond (Revised 01.04.2018). Additionally, remove all references of “N/A” as it relates to Form 8 in this RFP.

5. Revised last day to submit questions: Friday, January 19, 2018 @ 2:00 P.M. E.S.T.

All questions and inquiries concerning this project should be directed in writing to Ms. Stacy E. Hobson, Contracting Officer, Department of Procurement, 55 Trinity Avenue, S.W., City Hall South, Suite 1900, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 or questions may be e-mailed to [email protected] or by efax to (404) 979.7785. The Proposal due date HAS NOT modified and Proposals are due on Wednesday, January 31, 2018 and should be time stamped in no later than 2:00 P.M. EST and delivered to the address listed below:

FC- 10078, Solid Waste Management Services Addendum No. 2 January 10, 2018

Susan M. Garett Interim Chief Procurement Officer

Department of Procurement 55 Trinity Avenue, S. W.

City Hall South, Suite 1900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

**All other pertinent information is to remain unchanged**

FC- 10078, Solid Waste Management Services Addendum No. 2 January 10, 2018 Acknowledgment of Addendum No. 2 Proponents must sign below and return this form with Proposal to the Department of Procurement, 55 Trinity Avenue, City Hall South, Suite 1900, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 as acknowledgment of receipt of this Addendum. This is to acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2 for FC- 10078, Solid Waste Management Services on this the ______ day of ______________, 20___. Legal Company Name of Proponent Signature of Authorized Representative Printed Name Title Date

ATTACHMENT NO. 1

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Questions and Answers

1) Following with our thoughts about the City of Atlanta RFP, we plan that we will

need an appropriate land to construct this state of the art infrastructure. Does the City

of Atlanta have any land suitable for the construction of the waste management

facility?

Answer: The City of Atlanta has not identified any land for this facility.

2) As you know, a top engineering project needs a large investment in both time and

money and we strongly believe that a 10-year contract does not have enough duration

to make a profitable project, since there is not enough time to regain our

investment. Would it be possible to extend the contract term?

Answer: The contract term is a ten (10) year base with two (2), five (5) year

renewal options. The contract has the potential to be twenty (20) years.

3) We are currently working on designing and constructing an initial 300,000 TPY

Waste Management facility and negotiating with the most innovative recycling

technology suppliers in order to offer a state of the art infrastructure and achieving

the challenging 90 percent diversion goal. We strongly believe that we can offer an

excellent proposal which will make City of Atlanta one of the most environmentally

friendly city in America, but we see that a month is not enough time to create a

competitive proposal. Therefore, we would like to suggest a deadline extension

which will allow us to create a superb project?

Answer: Proposal due date extended via Addendum No. 1.

4) Can the City please consider pushing the due date back because this is a huge

undertaking and we all need more time to pull together joint ventures agreements

and find suitable subcontractors?

Answer: See response to Question No. 3.

5) I understand the City of Atlanta is consolidating service providers to provide a more

efficient and streamlined approach for Atlanta’s Solid Waste disposal needs.

However, the proposed time line for our company to qualify as a potential sub-

contractor and meet the deadlines demanded by Prime bidders may possibly restrict

our opportunity. Is there any possibility the City might consider delaying the due

date to give smaller companies a better chance to participate in the bid process?

Answer: Revised Proposal Due Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 @ 2:00 P.M. E.S.T

6) Do you have or will you produce a bid form for this solicitation? i.e. a request for

pricing of the various solid wastes including Municipal Solid Waste, recycling, yard

trimmings, biosolids and water treatment wastes, tires?

Answer: See the official solicitation documents, Part 5, Draft Services Agreement,

Exhibit A.1, Cost Proposal.

7) Will the City require an affidavit of qualifications detailing experience, compliance

record, permits and licenses for contracts of this size?

Answer: The required affidavits and qualifications are detailed in Part 2,

Contents of Proposals/Required Submittals.

8) Will bidders be required to demonstrate capacity for managing aspects of this

procurement such as transportation, processing, and disposal?

Answer: Yes.

9) Due the broad scope of services in the RFP, we request an extension of time for the

due date of at least 60 days?


10) Should the City accept a proposal of services for this, what happens to the current

contracts that are in place for the same services?

Answer: Once a contract for these services has been executed, the City will make

decisions regarding current contracts.

11) Due to the complexity of the project and the importance of many of the

answers/clarifications, can a second question period be allowed once the addendum is

issued answering the first round of questions?

Answer: Yes. See Addendum No. 2, Item No. 5.

12) Are members of the Minority/Female Joint Venture team able to provide services

for this project as a subcontractor under the Office of Contract Compliance's 26.5%

MBE and 8.2% FBE goals for this project, or are the 26.5% MBE and 8.2% FBE

allocations for separate entities?

Answer: The certified minority or female joint venture partner is allowed to self-

perform work on the contract and credit their self-performance toward the diversity

and inclusion goals in one category (either MBE or FBE). Exception: the minority or

female JV partner MUST be the minority interest holder in the JV (49% or less).

13) FORM 4.2 Certification of Bonding Ability has an N/A on the Form, yet Bonding is

required in Appendix B. Is this Form required?

Answer: See Addendum No. 2, Item No. 3.

14) FORM 4.2 has an incomplete sentence in paragraph 6, (c)......and...Is the surety

supposed to complete this sentence? It is very unclear?

Answer: Yes.

15) An annual Payment Bond and an annual Performance Bond in the amount of 100%

of the annual contract value are required according to Appendix B. Should there

be Forms for "Certificate of Bonding Ability" related to these bonds included in Part

4., Required Submittal Forms? If so, these bonding forms need to be added to the

Proposal Submittal Checklist?


16) FORM 8 - Proposal Bond has an N/A watermark on it. According to Appendix B the

amount of the Performance Bond is 100% of the contract value. This form states

5%. Is this form required? (related to question 4, above)?

Answer: See Addendum No. 2, Item No. 2 and 4.

17) Are subcontractors required to complete Form 1, IIREA?

Answer: Please refer to the instructions provided on page 1 of 3 of Part 4,

Required Submittal Forms, Form 1.

18) The solicitation states that a Proposal Guarantee of 5% is Not applicable to FC 100-78.

FORM 8 Proposal Bond (page 1 &2) have an N/A watermark. Is a Proposal Guarantee

Required?

Answer: See response to Question 16.

19) Part 2, p. 8 of 12, 3.2.6.8 requires outlining, equipment layout, utility

requirements…work schedule.... hauling routes. Can this section be reduced to reflect

only necessary information? This also applies to 3.2.6.14?

Answer: At this time, this section cannot be reduced.

20) Could you please provide the Materials Management and Recycling Impact Area in

the PtC Program referred to in Part 2, page 9 of 12, 3.2.7.3?

Answer: Additional information is contained at:

http://p2catl.com/green- initiatives/sustainability-metrics-gri-report/.

21) How can proposers address future technologies that may not be in the marketplace

yet for inclusion in the diversion plan and cost page? How can attracting these types

of companies be an incentive in the solicitation?

Answer: The City is interested in proven technologies that are being used in

similar situations, as defined in this RFP.

22) Can you please describe how the Diversion Plan will be evaluated in the 10 points

that are allocated on Part 3. Evaluation of Proposals? By diversion percentage? By

innovation?

Answer: The Diversion Plan will be based upon evaluation of information

provided in response to Part 2, Contents of Proposals, paragraph 3.2.7.

23) Penalties for not reaching yearly diversion goals seem to be a significant

disincentive to innovate. Could the enforcement be lessened or have a range goal, i.e.

10% of the stated goal? This would be more acceptable and would lessen penalties

and incentivize innovation?

Answer: Service Providers shall describe in their Diversion Plan the percent diversion

they will achieve each year. The City may address this issue during contract

negotiations.

http://p2catl.com/green-

24) Material Composition - The material composition listed in the Revenue Sharing Table

appears to by low on paper commodities (MP & OCC) and high on plastics, with no %

for Newspaper. An error in the composition will skew the overall value. Can a

typical material composition be used for the Revenue Sharing Table to better reflect

the blended material value?

Answer: No. Newspaper is listed as a material component but it’s percent

composition is not known.

25) Revenue Sharing Table - The City has requested a 10% minimum revenue share of the

blended value ($/ton). How did the City determine 10%? It is customary for the

processor to charge a processing fee and share revenue after the processing fee is taken

out of the total blended value. Could the City revamp the Revenue Sharing Table to

recognize the operator's processing fee? A 10% revenue share without accounting for

processing fees is unreasonable and may lead to limited responders and/or a $0 per

ton response to eliminate risk? Industry Standard is:

Processing Fees and Recyclable Revenue Share for Materials Collected

from Residential Service Customers. The Contractor may charge a

Processing Fee for each incoming ton of materials Collected from Residential

Service Customers and delivered by or on behalf of the City to the Delivery

Facility and accepted by the Contractor. For such materials, the Contractor

will pay the City a Recyclable Revenue Share for each incoming ton in

accordance with the Contract.

The calculation for the Recyclable Revenue Share shall be as follows:

Net Revenues = Gross Recyclable Revenue from sale of Recyclable Material -

Processing Fee accrued by Processor

Then

City Recyclable Revenue Share = Net Revenues x Proposed Recyclable

Revenue

Share to City (%)

Answer: Please complete the Revenue Sharing Table as requested in the official

solicitation documents. The City will consider zero percent (0%) revenue share.

26) In Exhibit A, Scope of Services, 3.3.2 Waste Group 2: Recyclables, Acceptance and

Rejection of Loads on p. 13 of 26 the Solicitation states that the Service Provider

may not reject a load delivered by the City for any reason. We feel that this

stipulation is unreasonable and may violate permit requirements for MRF's (Material

Recovery Facility). Unless otherwise permitted, MRF's cannot accept Municipal

Solid Waste (MSW). Since the MRF does not ultimately control the content of

the City's trucks, could the document be edited to allow rejection of loads that are

backed up by certain industry standard specifications?

Answer: The City expects the provider to receive, process, and dispose all waste.

27) What company currently provides yard trimmings processing and what is the per ton

fee paid by the City now?

Answer: TAG Grinding at $34.00/ton.

28) If a company submits a Design/Build/Own/Operate and Transfer Ownership to the

City as an Alternate Proposal, how can those fees be effectively evaluated against

base proposals fees if the operation does not exist?

Answer: Any such comparisons will be considered by the City during the

proposal evaluation process.

29) By law, if the City offers its own real estate and accepts an alternate proposal for a

Design/Build/Operate and Transfer Ownership to the City, wouldn't the City need to

issue an official separate RFP for the purposes of a Design/Build/Own/Operate and

Transfer Ownership to the City scenario?

Answer: No. The current RFP allows for this scenario.

30) Should the cost of operating a bulky waste drop-off center be calculated in the unit

price per ton on the Cost Proposal for Bulky waste, or should it be a separate lump sum

operational cost?

Answer: Yes, the cost of operating a bulky waste drop-off center should be

calculated in the unit price per ton on the Cost Proposal for Bulky Waste.

31) Part 1, 21. Multiple Awards, p.5 of 5 states that multiple awards may be made as a

whole or as components of the Scope of Services (SOS). If a component of the SOS

is a subcontractor, would the City still have to work through the JV team, or could

the City contract with the subcontractor directly?

Answer: All contract work must go through the JV team. The contract will be between

the City of Atlanta and the JV team (not the subcontractor).

32) Because there are several components to the solicitation, operating hours vary by

nature of the service. Currently the solicitation states the following hours of

operation:

Monday-Friday: 5:00 am - 8:00 pm

Saturday: 5:00 am - 2:00 pm

Answer: These are the hours of operation that the City would need to deliver waste to

the facilities. The City will evaluate proposals based on these hours.

33) Current City law does not allow garbage trucks to collect prior to 7:00 am and most

residential waste and recycling services are completed by 4:00 pm. Could you please

adjust the hours of operation by component, or at the least, have the operating hours

reflect the City's statute for solid waste and recycling vehicles? The current code

states, "The collection of refuse or garbage shall not occur between the hours of

9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m."

Answer: The City will be collecting waste. The City is advertising for proposals to

accept, process and dispose of waste. We may need to unload waste during the times

in the RFP.

34) Proposal Total (Base Proposal) in Exhibit A-1., is a total of items 1-56, resulting in a

sum costs based on suggested tonnages by category. Can you add "for year 1" to the

pricing page?

Answer: Yes, proposers should assume the pricing is for Year 1 with any

annual adjustment to be negotiated.

Service Provider or the City may request rate an adjustment based on a combination

CPI and Diesel Fuel Price. The Fee payable for shall be fixed from the

Commencement Date for the duration of the first Contract Year. Thereafter, and each

year thereafter, the Service Fee payable for these services may be adjusted (increase

or decrease).

The Service Fee adjustment request shall consist of a combination of CPI and a Diesel

Fuel Price adjustment be as follows:

Current Year Price = Previous Year Price x (50% of CPI adjustment and 50% of

Diesel Fuel adjustment)

Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) Adjustment - CPI for Atlanta Metropolitan Area for

Water and Sewer and Trash Collection (December 1997 – 100) or successor indices

as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Adjustment will reflect % change

from previous year.

Fuel Cost Adjustment - An annual adjustment to the cost of diesel fuel utilized will

also be applied. The base fuel price will be the on-highway diesel price for the

lower Atlantic Region as listed on the Federal Department of Energy, Energy

Information Administration website

"http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/wohdp/diesel.asp," on the last Monday before the

bid due date. The unit price will be adjusted annually based on the difference between

the base fuel price and the on-highway diesel price for the lower Atlantic Region on

the last Monday of the year. Adjustment will reflect % change from previous year.

35) If a proposer has exceptions to the DRAFT contract, should they be included in the

response?

Answer: Yes.

36) The airport is in negotiations with a company to handle waste and recyclables from the

airport. That RFP stated that the successful respondent would process the residential

yard trimmings from the City. Has the City received a price from this company to

handle yard trimmings?

Answer: No. To date, the City of Atlanta DPW has not negotiated a contract or a

price from the contractor.

37) Due to the enormity of this RFP, the requirement of a JV, the collaboration of

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/wohdp/diesel.asp

multiple companies under one JV and the length of the contract, we respectfully

request at least a 90- day extension be provided in order to allow for the best response

to the City.


38) Please provide a breakdown of your recycling materials by percentages as well as the

plastics by #1 PET, #2 HDPE and #3-7 combined.

Answer: The information in the RFP is the most current, and we do not have a

breakdown by plastics.

39) When was the last time you did a composition study?

Answer: The last Composition Study for recyclable materials took place in April

2017 by Cascadia.

40) What company performed the last composition study?

Answer: The last Composition Study for recyclable materials took place in April 2017

by Cascadia.

41) Do you expect all materials including glass to be recycled?

Answer: Yes.

42) Will the City consider postponing the due date by 90 days?


43) Page 2 of 5, 8.1. – “Each Proponent is required to furnish a Proposal Guarantee in the

amount of five percent (5%) of the lump sum amount.” Is this amount per year or for

the totality of the 20-year contract?

Answer: The proposal Guarantee is only furnished once, at the time of

Proposal submission.

44) Page 5 of 5, 21. – Multiple Awards: “The City reserves, at its sole discretion, the

option to award to multiple Proponents.” If the total amount of the awarded

contract is less than $5 million will that proponent be required to fulfil the JV

requirement?

Answer: Yes. In accordance with Appendix A of the solicitation document,

interested bidders must enter into a joint venture with at least one certified firm (as JV

partner). The City has made this requirement mandatory. Therefore, a proponent who

proposes a price of $4.9M is still required to enter into a joint venture with at least

one certified firm in addition to achieving the EBO or SBO subcontractor goals.

45) Page 3 of 12, 3.2.1.2. – Detailed Executive Summary: “The general and specific

capabilities and experience of the Proponent’s Team.” This will be a new JV

agreement. Our teammates would not have experience working as a team. How are we

to handle a situation when the team members have not worked together?

Answer: The experience requirement can be met by Key Personnel or any member of

the Joint Venture entity.

46) Page 4 of 12, 3.2.2.1. – “Providing the Proponent’s Management Organizational

Chart, both graphically and in narrative format for personnel proposed to perform

actual Services on the Project and estimated percentage of work performed on the

Project (e.g., Principal 0.5% of time, Project Manager, 100%, etc.).” The amount of

work performed will vary wildly based on seasonal and other factors. Is it possible

to remove this question because it will be nearly impossible to know at this time the

percentage of work performed over a 20-year contract?

Answer: Please provide the Management Organizational Chart for the Joint

Venture, as required, in Section 3.2.2.1 at the time of the conception of the Joint

Venture. Provide the estimated percentage of work anticipated to be performed on the

Project.

47) Page 4 of 12, 3.2.3.5. – “Include a minimum of two (2) examples of similar or related

projects successfully completed.” This is a very unique RFP. I am unsure if

anyone would have experience with sludge, street sweeping, recycling, waste

hauling, transfer stations etc. all in one comprehensive contract that they performed

anywhere in the Country. How would the City like bidders to handle this request?

Answer: In the formation of a Joint Venture, the prime contractor may partner

with companies with diverse experience and capable of assisting in the handling of

all waste streams. The Service Provider can submit more than two related project

examples that illustrate your experience across all the services contained in this RFP.

48) Page 5 of 12, 3.2.3.9. – “Proponent shall have a minimum of five (5) years’

experience with the management of all waste groups as defined in this RFP.” We

are unsure anyone could answer this in a meaningful way. How would the City like

bidders to handle this request?

Answer: The Proponent, as defined in this RFP, is a Joint Venture (JV). Between the

Joint Venture participants, there should be total of five (5) years of experience

managing the waste groups in this RFP.

49) Page 6 of 12, 3.2.4. – Key Personnel (Tab in Volume I: Base Proposal): “Identify and

provide resumes for the individuals that the Proponent will use as Key

Personnel.” The (3.2.4.4.) Recyclables Marketing Manager, (3.2.4.5.) Billing

Specialist, (3.2.4.6.) Licensed Operator(s), and (3.2.4.7.) Licensed Haulers can be

handled by people who are local, at our corporate office, computer billing programs,

etc. This would be nearly impossible to identify the individuals who will handle

these services because they are not provided by one person. Is a response to this

entire question required?

Answer: The City intends to evaluate each proposal, including the proposed

Key Personnel. Accordingly, the proposed Key Personnel should be identified in the

proposal at the time of the submittal, the Proponent. The Key Personnel,

individual, will be responsible for coordinating with the City.

50) Page 7 of 12, 3.2.5. – Management Plan/ Technical Approach (Tab in Volume

I: Base Proposal): “Based on the Proponent’s Organizational structure, describe

how the Proponent will manage the Services. The Proponent shall describe its

approach to the Scope of Service presented in Exhibit A.” An analysis with this level

of detail will take significantly more time than the 30-day deadline will allow.

This can be created during the negotiation when companies are aware of how

the City will ultimately divide this contract amongst awarded vendors. Will the City

consider a revision or the elimination of this requirement?


51) Page 5. 6.3.6 “City may propose any changes to the Agreement, including, but not

limited to, changes that it contends do not involve an increase to the Maximum

Payment Amount…” Given this statement, should bidders infer it is possible a

successful proponent will not be compensated for services performed?

Answer: The Proponent will be compensated for the services as per the terms of

the Agreement.

52) Page 13 of 26, Exhibit A Scope of Service – “Processing Requirements. The Service

Provider shall process a minimum of eighty-five percent (85%) by weight of

delivered recyclable materials into recovered materials.” Does this total include

contaminated materials?

Answer: Yes, Service Provider shall process a minimum of eighty-five percent

(85%) by weight of delivered recyclable materials into recovered materials.

53) Page 13 of 26, Exhibit A Scope of Service – Disposal of Recyclable Materials

Prohibited. “The Service Provider shall not dispose of any recyclable materials or

market recyclable materials to markets that the Service Provider knows or reasonably

should have anticipated will dispose of the recyclable materials except with prior

written approval by the City.” As the City is aware, China’s National Sword campaign

was launched by their General Administration of Customs. It is a one-year initiative

with the goal of reducing “foreign plastics, etc.” This means that there may not be

markets for all materials. Unfortunately, this will result in the disposal of rejected or

contaminated loads. Without a domestic market there will not be a resource for

these materials. How does the City propose flexibility and support as it relates to

market availability for recyclable commodities?

Answer: The City understands this concern and as stated in the scope of services,

the Service Provider shall not dispose of any recyclable materials except with prior

written approval by the City.

54) Page 13 of 26, Exhibit A Scope of Service – Disposal of Rejects and Residue. “Each

Service Provider shall be responsible for all costs associated with the lawful disposal

of rejects.” This is an issue that is beyond the control of the industry. How does the

City propose flexibility or support as it relates to this issue?

Answer: The Service Provider is expected to provide the services as outlined in the

RFP.

55) Page 13 of 26, Exhibit A Scope of Service – Acceptance and Rejection of Loads. “The

Service Provider may not reject a load delivered by the City for any reason.” This is

an issue that is beyond the control of the industry. How does the City propose

flexibility or support as it relates to this issue?

Answer: The Service Provider is expected to provide the services as outlined in the

RFP.

56) Page 14 of 26, Exhibit A Scope of Service – Revenue Sharing. “Service Provider

shall share revenue from the sale of recyclables with the City. …At no time, shall the

City’s revenue share be less than zero ($0); the City shall not pay the Service

Provider for a “negative” revenue share.” Due to the stipulations above, this has the

potential to eliminate the business case for a company to bid on this opportunity.

How does the City propose flexibility or support as it relates to this issue?

Answer: Please complete the Revenue Sharing Table as requested in the RFP and the

City may consider alternative approaches during negotiations.

57) Page 14 of 26, Exhibit A Scope of Service, 5.0 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS –The

following table defines the compensation to the City for time waiting to complete

weighing.” Due to the stipulations in this table, this has the potential to eliminate the

business case for a company to bid on this opportunity. How does the City propose

flexibility or support as it relates to this issue?

Answer: The City needs assurance that it will be able to weigh and unload its waste

at a facility in a reasonable amount of time.

58) Due to the size and scope of this RFP we would like an extension from December

6th until after January 1, 2018.


59) Pages 1-3 of 14 of Submittal Checklist section or pages 52-54 of RFP. Statement of

Bidder’s/Proponent’s Qualifications. Do subcontractors need to complete Statement

of Qualifications forms?

Answer: Yes.

60) Page 12 of 14 of Submittal Checklist section or page 63 of RFP. Statement of

Bidder’s Qualifications, Key Personnel. Do subcontractors need to complete the Key

Personnel form?

Answer: Yes.

61) Pages 67 - 70 of RFP. Do subcontractors need to provide the safety record form?

Answer: No.

62) Page 66 of RFP. Do subcontractors need to provide their authority to transact

business in Georgia?

Answer: No.

63) Part 4 Required Submittal Forms. Pages 27 – 29 of RFP. Required Submittal Form 1.

Does the City of Atlanta want the Contractor Affidavit (Form 1) filled out and

submitted with the proposal response on or before the due date or does the City want

the form submitted before the due date? The request currently states, “filled out

completely and submitted with the proposal/bid prior to proposal due date.“ If it is

due before the proposal due date, when does the City want it submitted?

Answer: City of Atlanta requires the IIREA Contractor Affidavit (Form 1) filled out

and submitted with the proposal response, unless an offeror participates in the IIREA

Preview Participation program. Proposals may be submitted prior to the due date, but in

no instance, will Proposals submitted after 2:00 P.M. on the due date, be accepted.

64) What is the start date of the service contract?

Answer: That will depend on when the contract is executed.

65) Exhibit A Scope of Services. Page 22 of 26. Please confirm the six days the City

wants MSW to be received.

Answer: Monday through Saturday.

66) Exhibit A Scope of Services. Page 22 of 26. Please provide the City’s observed

holidays where MSW will not be provided to contractor.

Answer: New Year's Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Independence

Day Labor Day, Veteran's Day

67) Will the City please provide a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that was shown

during the “pre-bid” conference?

Answer: The PowerPoint presentation from October’s Industry Day is posted on The

City of Atlanta Department of Public Works website.

http://procurement.atlantaga.gov/fc-10078-solid-waste-management-services/

68) Would like to request the proposal deadline be extended beyond December 6, 2017

simply not enough time to respond to this RFP please advise if possible.


69) RFP, pages 77-79, section 9.3, “Taxes”- do not know what taxes are being

included in the “Charge”, but from a federal tax perspective, not aware of any taxes

that need to be collected. If the City could please advise.

Answer: Taxes will be assessed at the state and federal rate, where applicable.

70) Could you please provide copy of the sign in sheet from the Monday, November 13,

2017 Pre- Proposal Conference

Answer: Please see the City’s website: http://procurement.atlantaga.gov/fc-10078-

solid- waste-management-services/

71) Because of the size and magnitude of this solicitation, can the due date be pushed

back?

http://procurement.atlantaga.gov/fc-10078-solid-

http://procurement.atlantaga.gov/fc-10078-solid-


72) 2.3 Scope of Services, yard waste is taken to 2175 James Jackson Parkway, who is the

private contractor that processes the yard waste?

Answer: TAG Grinding Services, Inc.

73) General Question, Will the City award the solicitation to one single proponent? 3.2

Scope of Services reads where City can award up to multiple proponents.

Answer: The City reserves the right to award to multiple proponents.

74) Exhibit A-1 Cost Proposal – Do we add up the sludge tons to get the lump sum total?

Answer: Please follow instructions detailed in Exhibit A.1.

75) Exhibit A-1 Cost Proposal – what does mobilization and demobilization mean?

Answer: Mobilization is the action of preparing or organizing the forces

required to activate a service or activity. Demobilization is the act of shutting down

forces or activity.

76) Exhibit A-1 Cost Proposal – the lump sum should be off maximum number of tons

listed in the unit price?

Answer: The Lump Sum Total shall be based on the “Proposal Quantity,” not

the maximum number of tons. It is the summation of the Extended Cost.

77) What is the difference between a wet ton and a dry ton?

Answer: Wet tons is also called biosolids. When biosolids goes to the landfill it

must be dry. Water is removed through a dewatering process which turns the wet ton

into dry ton.

78) How does recycling count in the lump sum total?

Answer: Proposers shall add each extend cost and subtract the revenue share (Pay

Item 56) to derive the Total.

79) Proposal Form Diversion Requirements - explain if we don’t reach the diversion

requirements that we are to reimburse the City. What if there is no diversion

technology or facilities available?

Answer: The proponent is responsible for providing a Diversion Plan, including, how

waste will be diverted and at what rates. The proponent MUST/SHOULD provide US

with a plan detailing their Diversion Plan.

80) Section 3.2.3.8.6, can we list municipal contracts because I don’t know of any City or

County with similar services of what you are asking us to propose?

Answer: Relative experience and contracts should be based on the Joint Venture

as a whole.

81) What if the recycling market crashes and there is zero payback for the commodities?

What does No Negative Revenue Share mean.

Answer: The Proposer shall provide the proposed revenue share percent and will

consider the potential impacts of a downturn in the recycling market. At no time,

shall the City’s revenue share be less than zero ($0).

82) Are there any fuel surcharge or CPI language in the contract, I did not see it in the draft

Service Agreement?

Answer: The escalation provision is provided in Question No. 34. See Scope of

Services, page 9, Pricing section.

83) In the base proposal, not the Alternative, is it correct that our base proposal must include

setting up a manned bulk waste drop off center for residents at no charge?

Answer: Yes.

84) I am respectfully requesting a Time Extension of 60 days in order for DeKalb and other

smaller vendors to prepare and submit a competitive bid in the RFP process. I know

the City has put in a lot of effort in preparing this RFP but it is my belief that only the

largest private vendors has the resources to meet this aggressive time schedule.

DeKalb is very interested in participating but it is a lot to put together and it is going

to be extremely difficult to meet the many requirements. Many smaller bidders has

expressed interest to team up with DeKalb in order to submit a long term competitive

bid to this RFP.


85) We are requesting an extension of the due date which currently is for December

6. We appreciate your consideration


86) How many references are required for this response? In Part 2 on page 5 or 12 it states 5

clients are required for references. On required Submittal Form 7 only 3 references are

required.

Answer: Five (5) references are required for this response.

87) Required Form Form 4.2. Is a certificate of bonding ability required? The Proposal

Submittal Check Sheet has this form marked as N/A.


88) Required Form Form 8. Is a proposal bond required? The Proposal Submittal Check

Sheet has this form marked as N/A.


89) The RFP is complex and specific and has a major holiday fall during the response

period. Would the City consider a 3-month extension on proposal submittals to March

5th, 2018?


90) The deadline for questions is November 21st, 2 days before the Thanksgiving

Holiday. Our experience is that under the best of circumstances it takes 7-10 days for

important questions to be answered, which could make critical information available

mere days before the current December 6th deadline. Will COA consider adding

a second question period to allow clarification of the City’s response to the

November 21st questions?


91) Item 10 states that the City owns the proposals. How will the City protect

proprietary information that might be contained in submittals?

Answer: [This pertains to] any trade secrets obtained from a person or business entity

that are required by law, regulation, bid, or request for proposal to be submitted to an

agency. An entity submitting records containing trade secrets that wishes to keep

such records confidential under this paragraph shall submit and attach to the

records an affidavit affirmatively declaring that specific information in the records

constitute trade secrets pursuant to Article 27 of Chapter 1 of Title 10. O.C.G.A. §

50-18-72(a)(34)

92) Will certain information involving trade secrets be protected from public disclosure if

they are marked as such?

Answer: see response to Question No. 91.

93) What is the material diversion goal of the RFP? Is it consistent with Atlanta’s Zero

Waste diversion goal of 95%?

Answer: The material diversion goal of the RFP is the City’s goal of 90%, as stated

on page 25 of 26 in Exhibit A, Scope of Services.

94) What is considered “diversion” by the City?

Answer: Diversion is defined in Exhibit A, Scope of Services, page 2 of 26.

95) Do submittals only require one set of Volume II forms, even if they contain both a

Base and an Alternate Proposal?

Answer: Each Proposal must consist of one (1) original and five (5) copies. Only

one (1) copy of Volume II forms are required per set (i.e. one original Volume II and

five copies). However, if alternative proposals will utilize difference Key Personnel

and/or different Statement of Qualifications, additional Volume II forms

should be submitted as appropriate.

96) The RFP seems to presume that a multi-route system is the only way to achieve

its goals. Would the City consider a One Bin mixed-waste sorting Alternative if it

can be demonstrated that the goals of the RFP will be met?

Answer: The City has included the opportunity to submit an Alternate Proposal.

97) Will the City make collection cost and route data available to bidders that wish to

demonstrate collection cost savings from their proposal? (See Collection Questions

below)

Answer: No. The City of Atlanta will continue to collect all waste streams.

98) Section 3.2.6.2. refers to “increasing/decreasing needs” “to meet Department of

Public Works requirements.” Does this refer to fluctuations in waste volumes

collected and delivered by DPW?

Answer: Yes.

99) In some places (e.g. 3.2.4.6, 3.2.6.8 & 3.2.6.14) the implication is that water treatment

will be covered under the RFP and in other places it seems to focus solely on

biosolids and water residuals from wastewater treatment. Could the City clarify the

scope of the RFP with regards to the treatment of water?

Answer: It includes biosolids and residuals from water and wastewater treatment.

100) Would the City consider an integrated liquid waste/solid waste treatment strategy

as part of an Alternative Proposal? (See question on Alternative Scoring below.)

Answer: Yes.

101) Commercially proven is defined as facilities operating in the United States. Given

that the most advanced, commercially-proven beneficial reuse technology exists in

Europe, would the City also accept operational experience from facilities outside the

United States?

Answer: Given the potential differences in waste streams, collection methods, costs

and operational factors, the City prefers facility that have demonstrated

experience in the United States. However, the City may consider European

facilities if it meets the qualitative amount of time it has been in operation as

stated in the RFP and the Service Provider demonstrates the facility is operating

under conditions similar to those in the City of Atlanta.

102) If a winning proposal includes the construction of a new beneficial use facility,

would the COA consider extending existing processing and disposal contracts

another 2-3 years until completion of the new facility?

Answer: That may be considered once a proponent is selected and contract awarded.

103) As written, the RFP assumes that all resources will be sold into the commodity

markets. How will COA evaluate proposals that seek to turn recovered materials into

new goods instead of selling them into the commodity market?

Answer: The RFP does not dictate how the recovered materials get to the

commodity market. We are interested in Diversion, as defined in the Scope of

Services.

104) Would ALL facilities proposed for development to meet the requirements of the

RFP fall under DBOOT?

Answer: DBOOT is one option. We would like your ideas and proposals.

105) The RFP gave the example of an SSO processing facility to be transferred over 15

years. Would the City be open to longer time frames, such as 20-30 years, for

larger more comprehensive facilities?

Answer: The proposed contract for this RFP is a ten (10) year base, with two (2), five

(5) year renewal options. The contract could be up to twenty (20) years.

106) Will the single stream material collected under the City’s current contract be

available under FC-10078?

Answer: Yes. Single stream material will be available.

107) We are having a hard time understanding the following sentence on p. 12/26 of

Exhibit A: “With prior written approval from a City, the Service Provider may

recover materials from Groups 1 and 5 materials delivered by such City (transport

recyclable materials accepted at a transfer station to a materials recovery facility).”

Could the City please clarify the meaning of this sentence?

Answer: With prior written approval from a City, the Contractor may divert or

recover materials from Groups 1 and 5 materials. If approved, Contractor assumes

all cost and liability arising out of recovery of such materials.

108) In the context of its diversion rate goals and the scoring and structure of the RFP,

has the City factored in the recent collapse of the China market for well over half the

material collected through single stream programs?

Answer: The City understands this concern and it will be addressed during

contract negotiations.

109) In the last year, single stream processing costs have doubled and, since July, the

value of recovered mixed recyclables has decreased by half or more. How will the

RFP be modified to reflect the reality of China’s refusal in 2018 to accept recovered

materials, which effectively renders “previous projects” provably uneconomic and

infeasible because of the fundamentally altered structure of the market?

Answer: The RFP will not be modified to consider this recent development.

These developments can be discussed during contract negotiations.

110) According to Waste Dive, two months before the China import ban goes into effect,

nearly 30% of the U.S. market has been significantly affected. Who is responsible for

the additional costs when collected recyclables must be warehoused or disposed of

due to lack of markets?

Answer: The City understands this concern and it may be addressed during

contract negotiations.

111) Will the vendor or the City be required to notify the citizens of Atlanta that their

curbside “recycled” materials are being landfilled, if there are no markets in which to

sell the materials?

Answer: The City will notify the citizens of Atlanta relative to any changes in solid

waste procedures.

112) Given these unprecedented conditions, how is “previous experience” on

outmoded approaches to recycling and beneficial reuse relevant to determining

Atlanta’s path forward for potentially the next 20 years? (An analogy: a 1900s waste

hauling RFP evaluating/scoring bidders based on adequate stables and feed for

horses, when a bidder is proposing to use trucks.)

Answer: The City is looking for service providers to demonstrate experience,

preferably recent experience. As stated in the RFP, a Proposer may submit an

Alternate Proposals if a Base Proposal is also submitted. The City, through the

Alternate Proposal process allows for innovation, flexibility, cost savings and risk

reduction should a Proposer select to construct a processing facility to allow for

diversion instead of disposal.

113) There currently is no discussion of and no credits for job creation, economic

development, environmental benefits, GHG reduction, innovation, education,

revenue share with the City, etc. Will the City consider including these elements in

scoring the Alternative Proposal?

Answer: The Office of Contract Compliance will consider this as part of the City’s

overall selection process.

114) The scoring matrix gives 10 points for Transportation Distance, but isn’t the issue

really collection costs? If a vendor can demonstrate lower collection costs

through route consolidation, would this be an acceptable evaluation criterion instead

of distance?

Answer: No. For this solicitation, the City is only interested in drop off or processing

facility location/distance.

115) Since the Zero Waste Zone 95% diversion goal is far outside the realm of

achievement of status quo programs, will the City consider changing the scoring

weights for the Alternative Proposal to reflect current market conditions that should

favor cost and innovation over status quo experience?

Answer: The City understands this point, however, the scoring weights will remain

the same for Base and Alternate Proposals.

116) Would the City consider a modified Sample scoring system for Alternative Proposals

such as follows:

RELATIVE

WEIGHT GRADED ITEM SCORE

5 Executive Summary

5 Organizational Structure

5 Overall Experience, Qualifications, and Performance on Projects that

Achieve Similar Goals

5 Key Personnel

15 Management Plan / Technical Approach

15 Diversion Plan and Diversion Achieved

10 City Transportation Cost

10 OCC Programs

5 Environmental Benefits

10 Financial / Capacity

15 Cost Proposal & Economic Development & Job Creation Benefits

100% TOTAL SCORE

Answer: No.

117) Forms 4 and 8 are marked “N/A”. Please confirm that they are “not applicable” and

do not need to be completed at this stage.


118) Would COA consider a longer initial term agreement of 20 or 30 years to allow for

private to accommodate the necessary infrastructure for a larger, more comprehensive

approach to the City’s waste?

Answer: The proposed contract is a ten (10) year base contract with two (2), five (5)

year renewal options, for a total period of twenty (20) years.

119) Does the City have a detailed breakout of the 15,000 tons of recovered materials

(e.g. Paper, Plastic containers (Resin ID Codes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7), Glass

Containers, Aluminum Containers, Steel, and Tin Containers) listed in Table 1, or

are the figures in the Revenue Sharing Table as detailed as is available?

Answer: No. We do not have a breakout of the requested items in Table 1.

The Revenue Sharing Table that is provided includes all of the information

related to the breakdown of recovered materials that we have.

120) In the Revenue Sharing Table, why is the Referenced Index restricted to Yellow

Sheet for the Chicago Market; for Glass, Aluminum, Bi-Metal, Plastics – Secondary

Materials. Pricing as published by Waste and Recycling News or American Metal

Market (AMM), Aluminum (1st). commodity market pricing?

Answer: The Indexs’ contained in the RFP illustrate the Index typically used for

this purpose. Service Provider shall complete the Referenced Index in the Revenue

Sharing Table as part of their submission.

121) Which Referenced Index pricing scheme is proposed: 1-year or 5-year average for

commodity prices?

Answer: A 1-year average commodity pricing is proposed.

122) Most recycled materials after sorting are sold and shipped to intermediate processors

rather than manufacturers. Would the City be willing to evaluate a cost proposal that

involved direct sales to manufacturers?

Answer: Yes.

123) If waste stream audits demonstrate that the mix of material composition changes over

time, can the Proposer modify payments to the City accordingly?

Answer: No adjustments will be made for processing and disposal cost. The

Service Provider needs to provide price the services as needed. If the composition of

recyclables varies, revenue sharing may be adjusted.

124) Does the City expect to Proposers share revenues from Beneficial Reuse of

materials not listed in the Revenue Sharing Table?

Answer: No.

125) If a vendor proposal can demonstrate significant cost savings in refuse collection,

would the City be interested in taking advantage of those savings?

Answer: See Response to Question No. 126.

126) What is the amount of time collection trucks spend on each route?

Answer: This information does not apply to this solicitation. This RFP is for waste

management and processing, not collections. The City will continue to collect all

waste streams.

127) What is the number of personnel for each truck and for each kind of route

(garbage, recycling, or green waste)?


128) What is the length of a shift for personnel on trucks?


129) What is the average salary for personnel staffing these trucks?


130) What is the administrative (non-field staff) budget for managing the Solid

Waste Department, either in actual terms or as a percentage of the total budget?


131) What is the average mileage for collection routes?


132) What is the number of households on each route?


133) How many households per hour do trucks on each route serve?


134) What is the average distance from the end of collection routes to the nearest landfill,

MRF, or transfer station?


135) What are the physical addresses of the three privately owned transfer stations that

currently serve the City.

Answer: Waste Management, 207 Plant Atkinson Road, Smyrna, Georgia 30349

Advanced Disposal, 5225 Welcome All Road, College Park, Georgia 30349

Pratt Recycling, 7095 Trade Water Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia 30336

136) Who is responsible for transferring materials from the City-owned collection

substations to the privately-owned transfer stations?

Answer: The City collects the waste and transports it to privately owned transfer

stations. That company is responsible for hauling the waste to its final destination.

137) What is the annual cost of trucks used for collection? (fuel, maintenance,

operations)


138) What is the capacity of trucks on each route?


139) Are City refuse trucks owned or leased?


140) If leased, what is the lease rate factor for trucks?


141) If owned, what is the purchase price?


142) What are the average wages for other city-supplied collection-related

infrastructure (e.g. transfer substation operation)


143) Can the city supply its route maps?


144) What is the current price per ton for recyclables processing charged to the City?

Answer: The City is paid $2.56 per ton delivered.

145) What is the current price per ton for green waste disposal/processing?

Answer: $34.00/ton

146) What is the current price per ton charged at each transfer station used by the City?

Answer: Yard Trimming: $34.00/ton

Recycling: $2.56/ton rebate

Trash: $28.50/ton (Company 1) and $30.43/ton (Company 2)

147) What is the current price per ton for landfill disposal/processing?

Answer: $28.50/ton (Company 1) and $30.43/ton (Company 2).

148) What is the location, capacity per day and closing date of the local or directed

landfill?

Answer: The City of Atlanta uses private landfills.

Waste Management, 207 Plant Atkinson Road, Smyrna, Georgia 30349

Advanced Disposal, 5225 Welcome All Road, College Park, Georgia 30349

Pratt Recycling, 7095 Trade Water Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia 30336

Additional information can be found at:

https://epd.georgia.gov/sites/epd.georgia.gov/files/2016%20Remaining%20

Capacity.xlsx

149) Does the City have access to up to 2,000 tons per day of waste?

Answer: The City does not currently have direct control of 2,000 tons per day of

waste.

150) What is the date for waste characterization for single stream recyclables found in

revenue sharing table Exhibit A costs proposal? RFP -9755 Recyclables

Processing Services composition breakdown differs.

Answer: Pre-Waste Audit – April 2017.

151) This solicitation involves an expenditure of tens of millions of dollars on the part

of the respondent. It requires the respondent to secure land, design buildings,

design equipment, permit all of the aforementioned items, identify end markets for

recyclables, estimate operating costs, obtain legal review on a plethora of City forms

and documents, and more - and of course have all of this completed, printed, bound,

and submitted in 35 days, some of which fall over the holidays. This is simply not

reasonable. Even with Envision in this business, we could never respond to an RFP

of this magnitude in this short a period of time. Therefore, will the City allow an

extension of time for the response? And if so, what will the extension of time be?

Please keep on mind that holiday schedules for those providing processional services

to the Proposer impact the schedule. For a complete response, we suggest a significant

extension of time.


https://epd.georgia.gov/sites/epd.georgia.gov/files/2016%20Remaining

152) Does the City have a recent waste audit and if so, can that be provided? Will the

City guarantee the waste composition since the composition is critical for the

Proposer to estimate their recovery percentage?

Answer: The City has the Pre-Waste Audit – April 2017. The City will not guarantee

the waste composition.

153) Will the City consider revising the penalty fee for falling short of the recycling

percentage? The current fee of $5k per 1/10th percent is quite significant! Absent a

clear understanding of the waste characterization over the contract term, it requires

the Proposer to be protective in their response which may in turn become punitive for

the City of Atlanta.?


ATTACHMENT NO. 2

FORM 4.2, CERTIFICATION OF BONDING ABILITY

Required Submittal (FORM 4.2)

FC – 10078, Solid Waste Management Services (Revised 01.14.2018)

Certification of Bonding Ability Instructions: Proponents MUST submit a completed copy of this form executed by their surety. Failure to submit completed form will result in the Proponent being deemed non-responsive.

I, individual’s name], on behalf of [insert surety company full name], a

[insert an [insert type of entity

LLC, LLP, corporation, etc.](“Surety”), hereby represent and certify each of the following to the City of Atlanta, a municipal corporation of the State of Georgia (“City”) on this day of

, 20 [insert date]:

(a) Surety is licensed by the Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner of the State of Georgia to transact

surety business in the State of Georgia;

(b) Surety has reviewed the Agreement attached to the solicitation for Project Number FC- : (“Project”) and its corresponding Appendix B for Insurance and Bonding Requirements;

(c) Surety certifies that if, as of the date written above, _________

(“Proponent”) was selected as the successful Proponent for the Project, Surety would provide bonding to Proponent for this Project in accordance with the corresponding Appendix B for Insurance and Bonding Requirements; and

(d) Surety only: The Surety states that Proponent’s uncommitted bonding capacity (not taking into

account this Project) is approximately $ _____________________________________(U.S.). Surety’s statement set forth in this Section (d) does not represent a limitation of the bonding capacity of Proponent or that Proponent will have the bonding capacity noted above at the time of contract execution for this Project.

PLEASE NOTE: If this Form 4.2 is executed by an Attorney-in-Fact, then Surety must attach a copy of a duly executed Power-of-Attorney evidencing such authority in addition to correctly completing this Form 4.2. If Proponent is unable to provide City with bonds that comply with the terms of the corresponding Appendix for Insurance Requirements within ten (10) days of receiving notice of intent to award the Project from the City, the City may, in its sole discretion, retain Proponent’s security submitted with its offer and/or disqualify Proponent from further consideration for the award of the Agreement.

By executing this certification, Surety represents that all of the information provided by Surety herein is true and correct as of the date set forth above.

Surety: [insert company name on line provided below]

By: _________________________________

Corporate Secretary/Assistant Secretary

Print Name: (Seal) Title:

ATTACHMENT NO. 3

FORM 8, PROPOSAL BOND

Required Submittal “Unless a Proponent Elects to Submit an Alternative Form of Payment”(FORM 8)

Proposal Bond (Page 1 of 2)


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT WE

hereinafter called the PRINCIPAL, and

hereinafter called the SURETY, a corporation chartered and existing under the laws of the State of , and duly authorized to transact Surety business in the State of Georgia, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Atlanta, Georgia (OBLIGEE), in the penal sum of either: [i] _______________________________________________ Dollars and Cents ($__________________________); or [ii] 5% of PRINCIPAL’S Proposal amount for PROJECT NUMBER FC- ; , good and lawful money of the United States of America, to be paid upon demand of the OBLIGEE, to which payment well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, jointly and severally and firmly by these presents.

WHEREAS the PRINCIPAL has submitted to the OBLIGEE, for PROJECT NUMBER FC-__; ___________________________________________________________________________________, a Proposal;

WHEREAS the PRINCIPAL desires to file this Bond in accordance with law, in lieu of a certified Proponent’s check otherwise required to accompany this Proposal;

NOW THEREFORE: The conditions of this obligation are such that if the Proposal be accepted, the PRINCIPAL shall within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of written notification from the CITY of the award of the Contract execute a Contract in accordance with the Proposal and upon the terms, conditions and prices set forth therein, in the form and manner required by the City of Atlanta, Georgia, and execute sufficient and satisfactory Performance and Payment Bonds payable to the OBLIGEE, each in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the total Contract price in form and with security satisfactory to said OBLIGEE, then this obligation to be void; otherwise, to be and remain in full force and virtue in law; and the SURETY shall upon failure of the PRINCIPAL to comply with any or all of the foregoing requirements within the time specified above immediately pay to the OBLIGEE, upon demand the amount hereof in good and lawful money of the United States of America, not as a penalty but as liquidated damages.

In the event suit is brought upon this Bond by the OBLIGEE and judgment is recovered, the SURETY shall pay all costs incurred by the OBLIGEE in such suit, including attorney’s fees to be fixed by the Court. PLEASE NOTE: If this Form 8 is executed by an Attorney-in-Fact, then Surety must attach a copy of a duly executed Power-of-Attorney evidencing such authority in addition to correctly completing this Form 8.

Required Submittal “Unless a Proponent Elects to Submit an Alternative Form of Payment”(FORM 8)

Proposal Bond (Page 2 of 2)


This Proposal Bond is for the Penal Sum of: [i] __________________________________________________ Dollars and Cents

($__________________________), being in the amount of 5% of the CONTRACT Sum; or [ii] 5% of PRINCIPAL’S Proposal amount for PROJECT NUMBER FC- ; . The money payable on this Bond shall be paid to the OBLIGEE, for the failure of the Proponent to execute a CONTRACT within ten (10) days after receipt of the Contract form and at the same time furnish a Payment Bond and Performance Bond.

IN TESTIMONY THEREOF, the PRINCIPAL and SURETY have caused these presents to be duly signed and sealed this day of 20 .

Corporate Proponent: [Insert Corporate Name]

Signature: Print Name: Title:

Corporate Secretary/Assistant Secretary (Seal)

Non-Corporate Proponent: [Insert Proponent Name]

Signature: Print Name: Title:

Notary Public (Seal) My Commission Expires:

SURETY:

Signature:

Attorney-in-Fact:

Print Name:

FC- 10078, Solid Waste Management...

Documents

Transcript of FC- 10078, Solid Waste Management...