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