Commission approves RFP, four‑month extension for residential waste service and asks bidders to propose recycling options

Augusta‑Richmond County commissioners on Feb. 3 directed staff to rebid residential waste collection as a single request for proposals (RFP) covering three service zones, require bidders to include an optional recycling service, and extend the current collection contracts for four months while the procurement proceeds.

The motion approved by the commission also directed staff to deny the prior contract award and to seek proposals that cover residential garbage, bulky waste and yard waste; recycling will be solicited as an add‑on option with pricing included. The city’s administrator said ancillary services such as street sweeping and mosquito control are being treated separately and are not part of the immediate RFP.

Why it matters: Commissioners said they want a transparent procurement that balances price and qualifications and gives the city a single, coordinated contractor for all three zones. Several commissioners urged that recycling be included in evaluation criteria and that the procurement weigh qualifications in addition to cost.

Motion and vote: Commissioner Francine Scott moved to deny the current procurement and issue an RFP for one contractor to serve three zones, to require proposals that include junk/bulky pickup and yard waste and to include recycling as an optional, scored add‑on; Commissioner Al Mason seconded. The motion passed (8 yes, 0 no) with two commissioners absent; the clerk recorded the outcome as “That motion carries 8, with Mr. Johnson out, Mr. Lewis out.” The commission also approved an additional four‑month extension of existing contracts to cover service while the RFP proceeds; staff estimated the added short‑term cost at roughly $900,000–$1,000,000 for the extension period.

Commissioners debated procurement method. Administrator Allen and procurement staff explained the difference between an invitation to bid (ITB) that awards on lowest cost and an RFP that awards to the best responsive proposer based on weighted criteria. Administrator Allen said the governing body must direct whether cost or qualifications should carry more weight. “When you do an RFP, you do want to base it majority on the actual qualifications…sometimes that means we don't go to the lowest cost,” she said.

Recycling and funding: Staff said recycling is not currently operating as an established city program and that haulers would need to propose where they would take recyclable material; the commission asked staff to require bidders to provide a cost range for an optional recycling service. Administrator Allen said ancillary costs for services such as mosquito control or street sweeping will be returned to the commission in a separate funding package so members can see how those services would be paid for.

Cost estimate: Finance and operations staff estimated the four‑month extension will add approximately $900,000–$1,000,000 to current costs; staff said those expenditures would be reflected in upcoming budgets and tax bills as appropriate. Commissioner Al Mason clarified that the extension cost is not a sunk loss relative to a new contract but reflects service payments the county must make while procurement is ongoing.

Next steps: Staff will develop the RFP language per the commission’s directions, include written scoring criteria for recycling if members want it weighed, and return with a recommended award after responses are received and evaluated. The commission asked that the administrator’s office maintain visibility into the process and that staff consider ways to make mediation or appeals affordable for smaller operators or residents where applicable.

Ending: The motion to proceed with an RFP and extend current contracts passed; staff will report back with procurement documents, scoring guidance and a recommended funding plan for ancillary costs.