Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kingston board debates timeline for new solid-waste contract; committee and vendors differ on schedule
Summary
Select Board and Solid Waste & Recycling Committee discussed timing for issuing an RFQ to replace the town'''s trash contract, with committee members and vendors recommending 12'''18 months lead time while other officials urged moving sooner to avoid a repeat of past contract pressures.
Kingston'''s Select Board and Solid Waste & Recycling Committee debated when to issue a request for proposals for the town'''s next solid-waste contract, with committee members urging a lead time of roughly 12'''18 months and some board members pressing for an earlier procurement schedule to avoid last-minute supply and pricing problems.
Committee members and two vendors who met with town representatives told the board that acquiring collection trucks and equipment can take 12 to 18 months under normal conditions, and up to 24 months in strained supply conditions. The committee recommended issuing an RFQ that would allow award and vendor preparations well before the current contract ends in late 2027; its proposed schedule would collect data through December 2025, review options in early 2026 and begin vendor procurement in mid-2026.
Some Select Board members argued the town should begin the formal RFQ process earlier to avoid being "held hostage" by a provider unable to supply required trucks or equipment. Board members also raised concerns about material and labor price volatility and suggested the town include clear price-adjustment provisions and a vendors''' conference to collect bidder feedback before finalizing requirements.
At the meeting the board opened a draft RFQ and reviewed six submissions for a separate electrical contract for The Plains; for the solid-waste RFQ, the board instructed staff to circulate the draft to the Solid Waste & Recycling Committee, invite potential vendors for a bidders''' conference to test assumptions and timing, and report back with committee comments and a recommended schedule.
Chuck Margosian, who drafted a version of the RFQ, told the board the bidders''' conference is critical to identify what potential contractors can do and cannot do so the town's final scope is achievable and competitively priced. Solid Waste Committee chair Phil Coombs said earlier committee votes on timing were based on vendor feedback and recommended the board align procurement with the vendor timelines the committee heard.
No final award or vendor selection was made. The board asked staff to put the matter on the next agenda after the committee and town staff review potential vendors''' comments and to consider whether a brief market information step (an RFI or bidders''' conference) should precede the formal RFQ to reduce risk.
