RE: [greenyes] NYC's Recycling Program: Just the facts

["Steve Bloom" <spbloom@no.address>]

"Perhaps similar constraints explain why two of the nation's recycling leaders (San
Francisco
and Seattle) contract with small numbers of large firms (one, and two, respectively)."

	In the case of San Francisco, the reason for this is politics, pure and simple.
	-- Steve Bloom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rlange [mailto:rwlange.nycrecycles@no.address]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 1:02 PM
> To: greenyes@no.address
> Subject: [greenyes] NYC's Recycling Program: Just the facts
>
>
> Setting aside Mr. Hammer's expressed vested interest in the proposal which
> was not selected by the Department of Sanitation, Mr. Hammer misleads the
> readership of this listserve when he asserts that the team of proposers in
> which he participated had a "price substantially better than Hugo Neu's,"
> and that as a result, "Sanitation will be spending tens of millions of
> dollars more over the life of the contract than they needed to."
>
> The Proposals we received were evaluated based on overall quality in terms
> of ability to handle the tonnages we collect at existing and planned
> facilities, sound marketing plans, and total system costs to the Department
> of Sanitation, including transportation. Using these criteria, Hugo Neu was
> clearly superior to others who proposed, and for this reason they were
> selected.
>
>
>
> Nor is Mr. Hammer correct in his claim that opening up the Proposal process
> to smaller processors would have resulted in lower costs or other benefits
> to the City. It may seem axiomatic that more competition is always better,
> but over ten years of DSNY contracting with smaller processors in NYC had
> not proven this to be the case. And despite expressions of interest over the
> years by small firms seeking specialized segments of our commingled stream
> (separated glass, plastics) no other small firms proved that they had the
> capacity to carry out primary processing reliably and in tonnages that would
> make it cost effective for us to deliver to them. Perhaps similar
> constraints explain why two of the nation's recycling leaders (San Francisco
> and Seattle) contract with small numbers of large firms (one, and two,
> respectively).  Economies of scale clearly apply.
>
>
>
> In reality, the way that the City's contract with Hugo Neu will be
> structured will ensure that metal, glass and plastic will be recycled at the
> least cost to the city possible in this part of the country, over the long
> term. The entire purpose of issuing the RFP that we did was to secure a
> stable, cost-effective basis upon which to move forward with recycling and
> other forms of waste prevention, reuse and waste reduction in the future.
> It is ironic that with this milestone achieved Mr. Hammer, and others, have
> so much negative to say about recycling in New York City.
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Lange
>
> Director
>
> Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse & Recycling
>
> City of New York Department of Sanitation
>
>
>
>