Committee denies recommended waste-hauler awards, directs rebid with new terms

The Engineering Services Committee voted to deny the staff recommendation to award the residential waste and recycling collection contract as presented and directed staff to rebid the work with clearer terms, after several hours of debate over procurement method, pricing and what services the city should require.

The item before the committee sought approval of a contract award for residential waste and recyclable collection with two firms recommended by staff. Interim procurement and engineering staff told commissioners the procurement used a qualifications-driven request-for-proposal (RFP) process; price was part of the evaluation but not the sole deciding factor. Staff also said the goal of combining three zones into a single procurement was expected to lower unit costs compared with earlier single-zone estimates.

Committee members questioned that approach, the weight given to price in scoring, and whether the city should accept a two-vendor outcome or require a single vendor for all three service zones. Speakers raised operational concerns — including that a recycling container program has not been consistently serviced in recent years — and asked how ancillary services funded from the garbage fee (for example, mosquito control and street sweeping) would be maintained if contract structure or rates change.

After discussion the committee voted to deny the current recommendation and directed staff to prepare a new solicitation reflecting the committee’s preferences: ask for proposals structured to allow a single contractor for all three zones, include recycling options, exclude ancillary add-ons such as mosquito control and street sweeping from the waste-hauling solicitation (so those services can be funded or procured separately) and bring back a contract extension to maintain continuity while rebidding proceeds. The clerk read the motion back to the committee as four points including a proposed four-month contract extension on current agreements while the rebid proceeds. The committee’s vote to deny the current recommendation was recorded in open session as carried, with several members recorded by the clerk as voting in favor of denial.

The discussion also covered price signals: staff said a unit rate of roughly $24.10 per month per household appeared in the current RFP pricing, down from a prior single-zone estimate near $27 per month; commissioners pushed for more transparent weighting of cost versus qualifications and, in some cases, for a straight bid (ITB) mechanism where price would be the deciding factor. Members expressed concern about the city shifting additional costs to residents without a clear plan to maintain services such as vacant-lot cleanup and demolition that have been historically paid from the garbage-fee structure.

Procurement staff said the RFP followed Augusta procurement code; they emphasized that a rebid will require a clear set of instructions to procurement on whether the commission prefers an RFP, an ITB, single- or multi-vendor awards, and whether recycling is mandatory or optional.

Committee members asked staff to return with: a new solicitation that reflects the committee’s direction, a clearer separation of ancillary services from the residential collection contract, and an updated timeline and estimated costs for residents. The committee’s action sends the item back to staff to prepare a new solicitation and contract terms for commission consideration.