Roll-out Carts

Proactive Replacement Programs

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

Background - Carts

Roll-out Carts introduced in 1969Variety of Programs across the countryMaturity of Cart ProgramsLife of Carts

- Conditions which affect cart lifeDecision point for every City (County)

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?

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?

Why (proactive replacement)?

Consistency of Carts: Efficiencies, Aesthetics

Better presence within the City Ideal time to make other changes to the

program, re-educateSafety – residents and drivers

When (implement proactive replacement)?

Break even cost analysis – money talksBefore a change of staff of drivers and

operators to handle daily requestsTypically 10 – 15 years after initial cart

implementationAllow time for RFP/Bid, coordinating

distribution and retrieval, and citywide announcements

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

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

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

Case Study: City of L.A. (cont)

Cart Implementation: 1991, 1994, 1997Cart Failures – graph

Cart Failure Rate

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Units

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02(proj)

Fiscal Year Failures

(units)

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

Case Study: City of L.A. (cont)

Inherently conducting audit during distribution and retrieval of carts

Change size of yard waste cartsRFQ and Bid: Competitive price for long

term contract

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

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

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

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