Second guessing…or 2nd opinion?
A number of years ago my father and I sat at the kitchen table deep in thought. We had come to an impasse with the design of a piece of equipment we were developing. For months we had tried different alternatives, each one falling short of achieving our objective.
And so we sat there, staring at our prototype on the kitchen table.
My mother walked up and having no involvement in the project whatsoever took one look and said, “Why don’t you try….” and with that one naive comment she had solved the problem. I learned a very important lesson that day and it was perhaps because of that experience that I rejected a million-dollar proposal to solve our glass recycling system.
For months city staff have been diligently working on a solution to re-establish a key component of our recycling program. After sending out a second request for proposal (RFP) to secure equipment to sort our broken glass, staff recommended a high-tech, laser-powered system to sort out bits of shattered glass from scraps of paper, bottle caps and pieces of plates. It’s a system called Lubo, which is used in recycling plants in Vancouver and Essex, England and a local glass recycling company has called “cutting edge.” The Lubo system is available at relatively reasonable cost and will save money in the long run, since glass recycling is cheaper than landfilling it.
So why in the world would I vote against such a great proposal?
Back in February 2007 city staff consulted with NexCycle, the local company that used to recycle Guelph’s glass to determine what quality standards we needed to meet and issued the initial RFP for equipment suppliers. Two responses were received and evaluated by staff as well as an outside consultant, and both responses were deemed unresponsive as neither bid would have cleaned up our glass stream to meet required specifications. The RFP was reissued and we once again we received only two bids (interestingly, the same two respondents as the original RFP).
These revised responses were checked for accuracy, and completeness, and analysed in depth by our staff and the consultant. Staff also confirmed the information they had received by visiting both technologies in operation to ensure they performed as reported and to interview the municipalities using them. Following this review staff determined that one of the technologies again, failed to meet specifications.
City staff did an excellent job in selecting between the two options, the recommendation that came to council was well researched, evaluated and backed up by site visits and end user interviews. I have no doubt the recommended system will perform well and be a great asset for our City.
What concerns me greatly is the RFP process that resulted in only two options. I am troubled that even after reissuing our tender we still only received responses from the same suppliers. I didn’t get into this during the council meeting but I wondered why the same two respondents were now providing suitable proposals when only months before they were deemed unsuitable. To top it all off, I wondered why we didn’t ask NexCycle, the company that takes sorted glass from both Guelph as well as municipalities all over Ontario what system they specifically recommended. In only receiving two responses to our RFP I worried that we may have missed an opportunity to get a more comprehensive range of technical and financial options.
During the debate I worried greatly that I was wading into technical areas that I am unqualified to judge. Our staff and the consultants know what they are doing and have taken great efforts to make the right recommendation, but I couldn’t help but think about my mother and how she saw what the experts couldn’t see because they were too close to the problem.
I am also worried to make the wrong decision. Guelph taxpayers have heard technologies referred to as a “cutting-edge solution” before. They were applied to SUBBOR and our failed wet composting plant. When only one out of two proposals are even worth considering I get worried that we haven’t cast the net wide enough. We can’t be the only recycler facing these issues?
In the end, I believe we made a good choice, and our staff did a good job with what they had before them, but at the end of the day, if I have lingering concerns and my gut is telling me something is not right then I have to vote accordingly. Given that I was the only councillor to vote no on this recommendation I just hope it was indigestion.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Interesting to know the reasons behind your decision. You were the only councillor to vote against the proposal. Do you think you would have opposed it if your vote had been the deciding one between accepting and rejecting the proposal?
Magda
guelphmercury.blogs.com/59_carden_st
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
I must admit, I like the new electronic voting because you can’t tell how the other councilors will vote forcing everyone to make a decision based upon their own opinion rather than based upon how other councilors are voting.
As for your question… I would have to say yes. If over half of council thinks something should be voted down I would suggest that it probably shouldn’t pass. No ONE vote makes or breaks a motion (and that is probably a really good thing).
January 10th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Thanks Mike. Our role is to satisfy ourselves that what is being proposed by staff is plausible.
A couple of thoughts that would have furthered the discussion around due dilgence. We did not ask Dean what research he did among his peers (other than visiting facilities with the technologies), his peer associations or through his participation on AMO’s waste diversions committee. All of those would have been fair questions to balance with your question as to whether the recycler of our glass was asked to comment on a suitable technology beyond the material specifications they have for their own processes.
I am glad you will be having the conversation with Dean and Bill regarding our tendering process as this is an important area to understand and have confidence in as Councillors.
I disagree that our composting system failed. It was state of the art for its time. But there is a limited life span on this equipment because of technological advances and extreme operating conditions. The glass system we have just approved has an expected life span of 7 years. We can make sure we plan for this or we can let it collapse and create a crisis.
During 2000-2003, we invested $5M in an upgrade of the MRF to replace aging equipment and to introduce technologies to increase diversion and reduce operating costs. This investment was successful. In fact, over the years, our staff have a great track record of achieving the cost efficiencies and diversion rates projected for the investments they have recommended to Council. The composting facility should have been next on the list for attention. A planned investment in upgrading and/or repairs would have avoided the current crisis. However, this was stopped from the top for political reasons and we are left mopping up.
Happy New Year,
Karen