Decision details

The Cabinet Member:

1. Agreed that the Council is committed to the procurement and appointment of a Contractor to deliver Joint MRF services for bulking, sorting and onward processing/sale of recyclable materials for all participating RECAP partners, unless all partners agree not to appoint.

2. Approved on behalf of the Council the ‘RECAP Partnership Charter’, as attached at Appendix 1, including approval of the additional Schedule 2 Governance Agreement relating to the operation of the Joint MRF contract, commitment to participation in and commitment of recyclate materials into the joint contract.

3. Authorised John Harrison, Executive Director Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Culture, Recreation and Waste management (as appropriate) to approve the procurement process to secure a suitable Contractor and on its conclusion to make the decision  to award the Contract.

4. Agreed that Peterborough City Council will nominate a preferred supplier in collaboration with the participating partners, for the provision of the services of bulking, sorting and onward processing/sale of recyclable materials contract, on behalf on both Peterborough City Council and the RECAP participating partners.

5. Noted and agreed the approach to the Waste Framework Directive compliance regarding source separation of recyclate, as agreed by the RECAP Board on 4^th September 2013 and as attached at Appendix 2.

Under the Environmental protection Act 1990, as amended, the Council in its role of waste disposal authority has a duty to arrange for the disposal of the controlled waste collected in its area by the waste collection authorities.  It is by way of being a Unitary Authority also a Collection Authority and has a duty to dispose of the waste it collects on behalf of residents, for this reason the Council needs to make such arrangements for the safe treatment and recovery of such materials.

With the increased value of recyclable materials as a resource, local authorities were previously incurring costs for services to bulk, sort and process such materials and are now, at this time, receiving an income - although it should be noted that the market for recyclable materials fluctuates and incomes are consequently volatile. Joint working in this area has been shown to potentially increase financial benefits to local authorities, for example, by increasing the quantity of recyclable material presented to the market place and therefore its potential value.  It can also remove duplication of effort depending on the partnership approach and benefits can be derived from combining learning and expertise.

Supporting documents

·         RECAP Partnership Charter and MRF Governance Agreement Schedule 2 (Appendix 1)

·         WFD-TEEP (Technically Environmentally Economically Practicable) report (Appendix 2)

The MRF procurement is not necessarily expected to change service design or collection systems, but rather intends to maximise existing volumes/materials with more going into existing bins if operationally and financially practicable and partners ’levelling up’ recyclate type. It is understood that it is the options for Optimum Service Design (OSD), a separate Whole Systems Approach work stream, that will fully consider the implications of operational changes to collections services and thereby potentially offers the more holistic work stream through which to properly consider the Waste Framework Directive requirements for how recyclable waste steams are collected by 2015 - source separated or comingled. The WFD/TEEP paper (Appendix 2) sets out how RECAP intends to address and broadly comply with these matters. The MRF procurement will focus on quality and ‘necessity’ issues, with OSD addressing ‘practicable’ considerations. This approach has been agreed by the WSA Programme Board (1 August) and was agreed by the RECAP Board on 4^th September.

Best practice and challenging economic circumstances encourages Councils to work together to achieve the best outcomes for the residents and communities they serve. Reaffirmation of the RECAP Charter and its Guiding Principles (see Appendix 1) helps refresh the spirit of partnership and the collaborative ethos by which Partners would engage in the collaborative procurement and ongoing management of the resultant contract and partnership/contractor relationships.

Procuring collectively also further strengthens the RECAP Partnership ethos of collaborative working, achieving more together than we can deliver individually, for the overall best benefit to the public purse and the consistency of service to residents, helping meet the RECAP Vision of:

‘Working ever closer together to deliver the best most cost effective waste services for the benefit of all local communities in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’

The following options were considered as part of the project initiation.

Do nothing - Delay procurement at this time by investigating and assessing opportunities for partners to utilise existing contract arrangements within the partnership, or utilising extensions, procuring jointly at a later date.  Rejected because:

·     East Cambridgeshire have recently utilised the existing South Cambridgeshire contract, however, this contract would not allow for further excessive additional volumes of material without creating a significant change to the contract requiring re-tender.

·     Cambridge City/Huntingdon/Fenland District Council contracts do not allow for additional partners without creating a significant change to contract requiring re-tender.

·     Peterborough would be required to procure individually.

·     Partners could be financially disadvantaged utilising extensions and missing the potential benefits from re-tendering at this stage. 

Utilise PFI contract arrangements.  Rejected because:

·     Initial discussion with legal team at Cambridgeshire County Council indicates this would potentially mean a significant change to the contract, leading to significant legal costs and even re-tender.

·     May not generate competition and therefore achieve financial benefit.

·     Could reduce resource/time involved in tendering but revisions to the contact could counter this.

Jointly procure the design and build of a MRF, primarily dedicated to the partnerships use.  Rejected because:

·Is counter to conclusions to recent market testing by Peterborough.

·Lengthy process which would require interim contract arrangements.

·Capital investment required.

·Is being undertaken by a group of authorities in the South West although DCLG funding received for this.

None.

No additional documents were used.