Join Our Social Network

Address: INFORM INC 5 Hanover Square Floor 19, NY,NY10004-2638 212.361.2400


New York City's Waste Prevention and Environmental Procurement Programs: An Analysis of Progress

By Alicia Culver, Senior Research Associate, INFORM, Inc.

April 14, 2000

INFORM, a not-for-profit environmental research organization, is evaluating New York City's current waste prevention programs, and particularly the procurement of waste preventing and recycled-content products. What follows is a summary of INFORM's findings to date and its research methodology.

Introduction

The New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services' (DCAS) FY97/98 report, Environmental Procurement: Purchasing Goods that Promote Recycling and Waste Prevention, states that the agency "strives to achieve the highest procurement of goods with recycled content" (p. 3). It also claims that, "[t]he City of New York has maintained a leadership position in recycled products procurement. During Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998, we purchased a wide variety of recycled products, valued at approximately $35 million" (p.12). And that "the future outlook on recyclable procurement activity within the City of New York is positive."

INFORM's analysis of the DCAS report and the agency's track record present a picture that is quite the contrary. The City's recent record in purchasing recycled content products is declining and its reported purchases of waste preventing products are negligible.

INFORM remains committed to assisting the City of New York in truly taking a leadership position in the procurement of products that meet the agency's stated goal to "maximize the City's resources while minimizing waste" (p. 12). As a first step, INFORM recommends that the City hire at least two Environmental Purchasing Coordinators ­ one to revise specifications and the other to conduct outreach to NYC agencies. At a minimum, the City should look for opportunities to purchase the 36 items that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined are available at a reasonable price and that meet federal performance specifications. A full set of recommendations is presented at this report's conclusion.

 



Highlights of INFORM Findings

New York City's Purchase of Recycled-Content Products is Declining.

 



New York City's Reported Purchases of Waste-Preventing Products1Are Negligible

 



Methodology

INFORM's assessment of the effectiveness of NYC's waste prevention and environmental procurement programs relies on the following methodology:

1. Analysis of information on these programs contained in The Mayor's Management Reports;

2. Evaluation of Environmental Procurement: Purchasing Goods that Promote Recycling and Waste Prevention (Annual Report to the Mayor and City Council, Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998, prepared by the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, (DCAS) Division of Municipal Supply Services, April 1999); and comparing it to previous years' DCAS Environmental Procurement reports;

3. Review of specifications contained in bid solicitations and contracts awarded by NYC government agencies for the procurement of goods and services;

4. Interviews of vendors and potential vendors of environmentally preferable products to determine their experiences; and

5. Surveys of purchasing agents within the NYC government. (INFORM is also working with these purchasing agents and other NYC government employees to help them procure waste-reducing goods and services, minimize packaging of the products they receive and purchase recycled-content products.)

 



Analysis of the Mayor's Management Reports

Background

New York City Mayoral Directive #96-2, Waste Prevention and Efficient Materials Management Policies issued by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani on September 27, 1996, directs each city agency to "report annually [to the Mayor's Office of Operations (MOO)] on waste prevention measures that have been adopted and implemented pursuant to the Directive."

The Directive requires that within six months DCAS collaborate with the NYC Department of Sanitation (DOS) to submit "a plan for incorporating feasible waste prevention measures into its procurement practices" to the Interagency Task Force on Waste Prevention and Efficient Materials Management Policies ("the Task Force") (Section 2(c)). Also within six months, "the Mayor's Office of Contracts (MOC), with DOS and DCAS, shall submit to the Task Force. . .a plan for incorporating feasible waste prevention measures into its procedures applicable to the procurement of services by City agencies" (Section 2(d)).

Finding #1. The Mayor's annual Management Reports for FY97 through FY99, and the FY2000 preliminary report, indicate that the first steps toward complying with the Mayor's Directive #96-2 ­ the development and implementation of waste reduction plans ­ have not yet been completed. The plans are nearly three years late.

Instead of reporting on the status of the Plans, the Mayor's Management Report for FY97 provides only a general overview of the DOS's waste prevention programs and the Mayoral Directive. It simply states:

In January 1997 the City restored $600,000 for Fiscal 1997 and $860,000 for Fiscal 1998 to a multi-task waste prevention and recycled product research project. This project focuses on measuring waste prevention, analyzing waste composition, assessing waste prevention opportunities within DOS, reviewing potential waste reduction legislation, examining opportunities for cost-effective waste reduction, and increasing the City's recyclable product purchases through proactive procurement policies and related research. In Fiscal 1998 DOS will seek to expand this program to produce waste prevention assessments and provide technical assistance, helping City agencies save money through waste prevention as they implement Mayoral Directive 96-2, 'Waste Prevention and Efficient Materials Management Policies.'

Mayoral Directive 96-2 was signed by the Mayor in September 1996 and requires agencies to document both the specific steps they are taking to reduce waste, and the savings those measures generate. The Directive created an Interagency Task Force on Waste Prevention, which includes representatives from every City agency. The Mayor's Office of Operations has worked with the agencies to identify a daily waste reduction target for each, with a citywide target of 50 tons per day set for December 31, 1997. (City of New York, Mayor's Management Report, Fiscal 1997, September 18, 1997, pp. 115-117) 2

Section 2 (c) of the Directive requires that, "Within 18 months, the plan shall be implemented. It should include a schedule for implementing each of the waste prevention measures. DCAS shall report annually to the Task Force on the status of the plan implementation."

Section 2 (d) of the Directive further requires that, "the MOC plan [for incorporating feasible waste prevention measures into its procedures] shall include a schedule and be implemented within 18 months. MOC shall report annually to the Task Force on the status of the plan implementation and waste prevention measures adopted, including an estimated quantity of tonnage and money saved."

INFORM reviewed the Mayor's Management Report for FY98 and found that instead of providing an update on the status of the City's waste prevention plan development and /or implementation, it virtually repeats its FY97 description of the Directive with a new program title, CitySen$e. It again describes what the program is designed to do, in almost the same words, rather than what the program has done. It states:

In January 1997 the City provided $600,000 in funds for Fiscal 1997 and $860,000 in funds for Fiscal 1998 to a multi-task waste prevention and recycled product research project. This project focuses on measuring waste prevention, analyzing waste composition, assessing waste prevention opportunities within DOS, reviewing potential waste prevention legislation, examining opportunities for cost-effective waste prevention, and increasing the City's waste prevention and recycled content product purchases through both proactive procurement policies and related research.

The project, called NY CitySen$e, will provide waste prevention assessments and technical assistance to help City agencies save money through waste prevention. This program was launched in cooperation with the mayor's Office of Operations and DOS to facilitate compliance with Mayoral Directive 96-2, "Waste Prevention and Efficient Materials Management Policies." The NY CitySen$e program is designed to help City agencies cost-effectively reduce waste, enhance their recycling programs, measure the waste prevention achieved, and report the results. Successes will be highlighted in a City agency waste prevention guide and a series of seminars for City employees. NY CitySen$e targets a cross-section of agencies from all of the City's primary service areas. NY CitySen$e will help the City's efforts to reduce waste in preparation for the closure of the Fresh Kills Landfill. (City of New York, Mayor's Management Report, Fiscal Year 1998, September 1998, p. 124)

Approximately two-and-a-half years after the waste prevention Directive was issued, the Mayor's Management Preliminary Report for FY99 includes mention of anticipated results, projecting that, "City agency waste assessment reports and implementation plans, now being produced as part of the CitySen$e waste assessment/assistance program, are expected to be completed by the end of Fiscal 1999." (City of New York, Mayor's Management Preliminary Report, Fiscal Year 1999, February 1999, p. 111)

The Mayor's Management Report for FY99 indicated that:

During Fiscal 1999, the Department conducted the NYCitySen$e waste assessment and technical assistance program in conjunction with the Mayor's Office of Operations and a private consultant. The program piloted waste prevention initiatives in 11 City agencies and will create a guidebook for implementing similar programs in other agencies. Through the program, DOS identified opportunities and challenges for more effective waste prevention across all mayoral agencies."

The Mayor's Management Report for FY99 provides no details of the status of waste prevention plans required under the Directive or cost savings achieved or waste diverted to date. The Mayor's Management Preliminary Report for FY00, issued February 10, 2000, has no mention of waste prevention. 3

 



Analysis of the DCAS Environmental Procurement Report

Background

New York City's Recycling Statute ­ Local Law 19 ­ directs New York City agencies to purchase products made with recycled content. Specifically, Section 16-322 of LL19 requires the Department of General Services, now DCAS, to ensure that "specifications incorporate or require the use of secondary materials to the maximum extent practicable without jeopardizing the performance or intended use of the product. . . ." 4 LL19 directs the City to purchase all appropriate recycled-content items designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Section 16-322 (d) of LL19 provides that, "When purchasing paper products and other products pursuant to this section, the department of general services shall utilize the United States Environmental Protection Agency minimum content standards for recycled materials content promulgated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 6901, et seq." The EPA has promulgated minimum recycled-content guidelines for 36 items. LL19 also establishes a price preference for the procurement of recycled-content products of 10%. This means that the NYC government entities can pay up to 10% more for products with recycled content than they would for products without recycled content.

Contracts Emphasizing Waste Prevention

Finding #2. The DCAS Environmental Procurement report for FY97/98 does not mention the impetus for NYC's procurement of waste-reducing products, the Directive. This is significant because in failing to discuss the Directive, the report lacks the information and framework necessary to compare the Directive's specific guidelines with actual DCAS performance, such as how DCAS's environmental purchasing and surplus management programs meet the goals of the Directive.

Section 2 (b) of the Directive specifically requires that all City agencies shall, for example:

1. require vendors to eliminate or reduce packaging;

2. require vendors to provide reusable packaging and take it back;

3. procure printers capable of making double-sided copies;

4. purchase reusable and durable products, and those with extended warranties;

5. purchase products in concentrates; and

6. reduce their purchase of products with toxic ingredients.

Finding #3. The FY97/98 Environmental Procurement report generally provides only anecdotal information and lacks data on the extent to which waste-reducing products were purchased or to which waste-reduction programs were utilized by the NYC government.

Instead of reporting on progress in these areas, the report's section on "Contracts Emphasizing Waste Reduction" (pp. 7-8) contains a few anecdotes about specific waste reduction activities the City is undertaking, such as those detailed below.

Recycled Products Catalog: The inclusion of this item in the waste reduction section demonstrates that DCAS may not understand the difference between waste prevention and recycled content purchasing. This category does not deal with waste reduction. Instead, it addresses more recycled-products procurement through a catalog with the Staples Office Supply chain.5

Remanufactured Laser Printer Toner Cartridges: Purchasing remanufactured toner cartridges is an important waste prevention procurement action because it can save money while reducing waste. As DCAS notes, "Returns of any type of used toner cartridges are accepted for credit. In addition to the fact that agencies no longer have to be concerned with disposal of the cartridges, the recycled cartridges are from 5.7% to 52.5% less expensive on a cost per copy basis" (p. 8).

Again, the DCAS report lacks data on the dollar amount of remanufactured toner cartridges purchased by NYC agencies off this contract. Our research (through discussions with DCAS purchasing agents and vendors) demonstrates that procurement of these items ­ despite the cost savings and environmental benefits ­ have been extremely low. In fact, Industries for the Blind, which had a contract with DCAS through November 1999, recently announced that it phased out this product because of very low demand due to the government's failure to educate NYC agencies about the environmental and economic benefits of this item.

Finding #4. DCAS has reported undertaking several innovative waste-reduction programs such as the rental of copiers, the use of contract provisions requiring vendors to "take back" tires and batteries, and the issuance of a contract for the procurement of remanufactured furniture. These types of arrangements could be expanded dramatically.

DCAS indicates that the City spends approximately four times as much on copier rentals than on purchases. This is a good program that encourages vendors to repair broken machines, offer durable equipment, and recycle copiers at the end of their useful life. Greater reliance on these types of contract provisions would alleviate the costs and logistical problems related to the disposition of bulky and reusable materials.6

Despite its title, this section primarily addresses the disposition of reusable items and property, such as vehicles, computer equipment, furniture, etc. Mayoral Directive #96-2 directs city agencies to, "to the maximum extent practicable, use the DCAS Surplus Program." This section of the Environmental Procurement report describes several strategies that the DCAS Office of Surplus Activities (OSA) uses, or is planning to use, to promote "maximum re-utilization of municipal property by city agencies" (p. 9). While the report summarizes some interesting programs, it lacks sufficient information about their effectiveness and status. It also aggregates data for FY97 and FY98, rather than reporting annually as the Directive requires. It would be useful for DCAS to present a more detailed analysis of the net revenues gained from various "disposal" processes that are currently used by OSA such as vehicle auctions, sealed bids, direct transfers, and the operation of the B-53 warehouse. This would help New York City policymakers to assess the value of each of these operations.

The specific waste prevention measures in the report include:

Reviewing automated computer software programs in order to "develop a system that will allow [OSA] to advertise to city agencies the surplus property that is available" (p. 9). The report gives no projection of when this software will be procured nor when this program will be fully implemented.

This type of program has been highly successful elsewhere. For example, the State of New York's Office of General Services operates a website wherein State agencies can advertise the availability of surplus items or search for surplus items available from other State agencies. (See http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/surplus) Similarly, the Trenton Waste Exchange operates a website which facilitates the transfer of surplus property from businesses in New Jersey to other businesses and nonprofit organizations. (For more information, contact Carol Royal, Director, the Trenton Waste Exchange at http://www.epa.gov/cpg.) The Office of Surplus Management, may also wish to work with the DOS-funded WasteMatch program which lists items for sale to private businesses. The WasteMatch program may be contacted at (718) 786-5300, ext 24.

Issuing "a provision in the supply contract for the vendor to remove old/used items of the same category as they were supplying" (p. 9). So far, DCAS has included this provision in contracts for batteries and tires. INFORM agrees with DCAS that this approach offers "the best solution" for dealing with these items, because it places the responsibility for disposal on the vendor instead of on the City. Often these "take-back" programs create a strong incentive for reuse and recycling, because they facilitate the centralized collection of these items in sufficient quantity to be of value to end-users. We applaud DCAS for this effort. We also encourage them to incorporate this "property management" provision into other contracts such as equipment and furniture (which the agency is currently considering) and other items including carpeting, other types of batteries, wooden shipping pallets, and other types of packaging.

Directly transferring goods from one agency to another. "OSA attempts to match those agencies that are planning to dispose of a particular good with other agencies that would like to secure that same type of good. In these cases, OSA arranges for the direct transfer of the good between agencies. In this way, OSA bypasses storing these materials at the B-53 Warehouse and saves millions of dollars in agency purchases." Again, DCAS fails to provide any detail about the effectiveness of these efforts or any progress made in this program during FY97 or FY98.

Operating the B-53 Surplus Warehouse, which according to DCAS is "the central location for all city agencies to dispose of, or obtain surplus property" (p. 11). Without additional information, it is difficult to assess whether this program is fulfilling the Directive's mandate for this program to be utilized to the "maximum extent practicable." Interviews conducted by INFORM staff in 1999 indicate that this program is substantially underutilized and could be expanded dramatically to include trucking services, a warehouse in each borough and the use of an interactive website hosting digital pictures of items that are available for internal reuse or sale. It would be helpful to have the FY97 and FY98 data disaggregated and compared to previous years so that trends can be detected.

OSA Highlights. This section offers some interesting anecdotes about cases in which OSA sold or reused items. Data on these activities should be attributed to a particular fiscal year, given a dollar value, and put into context with data from previous years.

 



Background

DCAS issued its latest report, Environmental Procurement: Purchasing Goods that Promote Recycling, in April 1999. It contains data on its procurement of goods and services during Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998. We are using this to evaluate NYC's progress in meeting LL19's mandate for the NYC government to buy recycled-content products "to the maximum extent practicable" and the Mayoral Directive #96-2's requirement that all agencies "review and revise their procurement specifications and policies to incorporate money-saving waste prevention measures to the maximum extent feasible" (Section 2 (a)).

Finding #5. The DCAS reports appear to overestimate the amount of recycled content purchasing by: 1) reporting maximum values for contracts let, rather than tracking actual purchases; and 2) crediting the entire amount of multi-year contracts to the year they were issued, rather than pro-rating the contracts' value.

DCAS reports appear to track only the contracts issued during a given year, not the actual purchases made by City agencies under those contracts. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to gauge the city's actual spending on recycled products. For example, The FY97/98 report indicates that, "A contract was entered into with a furniture recycler allowing agencies to purchase remanufactured modular furniture units. The $314,500 agreement amount of this contract will allow city agencies to purchase equipment valued at well over a million dollars if purchased new." (p.7) Emphasis was added to the above quote because it points out that the contract will be used in the future, not that it has been used to date. DCAS did not indicate when this contract was issued and how much it was utilized in FY97 or FY98, nor how it compares to its procurement of non-remanufactured furniture.7

According to the Office of the Comptroller, at least one contract in Table 4 (for polyethylene bags) was provided a time extension, with no increase in funding. The explanation INFORM was given is that it is likely that the contract was extended because the maximum amount was not spent in the original contract period. These examples underscore the need for DCAS to track actual purchases rather than estimated contract values.

In addition, rather than pro-rating the value of multi-year contracts over their expected life, the DCAS reports attribute 100% of the dollar amount of the purchases to the year that the contract was awarded (in Tables 2 and 3). For example, some of the contracts in the FY97/98 report have terms that span past FY98 and yet the total value of these contracts is counted in this report.

To address this issue, INFORM prorated the contracts listed in the Environmental Procurement Reports for FY95, FY96 and FY97/98 for the entire period they were in effect. The prorated contract values clearly indicate a downward trend with contracts issued for a total of $25 million worth of recycled content products in FY96, $20 million in FY97 and only $15 million in FY98.

Moreover, in Table 4 DCAS includes contracts that were issued in FY95 and FY96 ­ but attributes 100% of the value of those contracts to FY97/98. If the same methodology was used for Table 4 as was for Tables 2 and 3 these contracts would have been counted toward earlier reports. (For more detail on this point, see Finding #13.)

Another way in which the FY97/98 report overestimates the amount of recycled-content products purchased by the City is by reporting the total print contract costs (including labor, ink and other non-recycled elements of the job). INFORM reviewed at least one print contract referenced in Table 3 of the report ant found that DCAS reported the total value of the print job contract, not just the value of the recycled product (paper). It is unclear how this was reported in earlier reports.

Finding #6. The FY97/98 DCAS report contains data on the procurement of only 4 of the 36 recycled-content items the EPA recommends that government agencies purchase, despite the fact that LL19 directs NYC to purchase recycled-content items that meet EPA's minimum standards.

EPA has developed comprehensive procurement guidelines (CPGs) for 36 recycled-content items for which it has determined are available in sufficient quantity and at a reasonable price.8 The EPA-recommended items purchased by DCAS include only recycled-content paper products, plastic garbage containers, plastic bags and fiber board.

The report states that NYC government does not buy many of the items on EPA's list which includes paint, garden hoses, floor tiles, parking stops, patio blocks, fencing, playground surfacing, restroom dividers, traffic cones and barricades and running tracks. We find it hard to believe that this is the case. In fact, a preliminary review of contracts issued during FY99 conducted by INFORM found DCAS ordering several of these items ­ but without recycled content.

The report also claims that that NYC does purchase 8 additional items on EPA's list of recommended recycle-content items; but it provides no data on the extent to which this happened during that reporting period. These items include recycled engine coolant, re-refined vehicular oils, retread tires, recycled-content carpets, binders and desktop accessories, and remanufactured toner cartridges and shipping pallets.

Finding #7. The vast amount (by dollar value) of recycled-content product contracts issued by DCAS during FY97/98 consist of two types of items: recycled paper products and recycled asphalt.

Recycled asphalt ($7 million) constitutes approximately 60% of the non-paper recycled procurement in dollars (totaling $12 million) and more if the numbers in the text are used instead of the figures in Table 4.

Finding #8. The aggregated amount of recycled-content product contracts issued by DCAS during FY97 and FY98 were more than $16 million lower than in FY95 and FY96 (combined) ­ representing more than a 30% decline from the previous two years.

According to Table 1 of the Environmental Procurement report for FY97/98, "Value of Procurements Containing Recycled Material," DCAS let contracts for $36,659,637 worth of products containing recycled material during FY97/98, for an average of $18.33 million annually. In contrast, DCAS had issued contracts for $25.85 million and $27 million in FY95 and FY96, respectively, for a total of $52.85 million. Thus, DCAS's recycled content purchases in FY97/98 were about $16 million less than in FY95/96, representing a drop of greater than 30% over the previous two years.

DCAS's steepest decline in recycled-content purchases came in the procurement of non-paper products where there was more than a 55% drop over the previous two fiscal years. Again, according to Table 1, DCAS reported issuing contracts for approximately $12 million worth of recycled-content items in non-paper contracts during FY97/98 combined, or approximately $6 million annually. In contrast, DCAS issued approximately $16 million worth of non-paper recycled-content product contracts in FY96 and more than $11 in FY95 for a combined total of roughly $27 million during FY95/96.9

Moreover, the dollar amount of recycled-content contracts issued by DCAS in FY98 is substantially lower than for those issued in FY97. For example, the DCAS recycled-content paper contract totals were substantially lower for FY98 than for FY97. Although this may be largely due to the fact that DCAS issued several large multi-year contracts in FY97, it also may suggest a potential trend toward even further declines in this program in the future.10 The number of print jobs with recycled content awarded in FY98 (12) was also significantly lower than the number awarded in FY97 (29) (See Tables 2 and 3).

Finding #9. NYC's recycled-content purchases declined during FY97/98 while those of other government entities in the region rose.

New York City could be leading the way in environmental purchasing. However, while DCAS states in its FY97/98 Environmental Procurement report that it "strives to achieve the highest procurement of goods with recycled content by taking a proactive role in environmentally sound purchasing" (p.3), it appears to be lagging far behind other government jurisdictions. For example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Operational Services Division reported in its Recycled and Environmentally Preferable Procurement Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1997 that, "[t]otal Executive Department purchases of recycled and remanufactured products grew by 57% in fiscal Year 1997, reaching $34.3 million, up from Fiscal Year 1996's $21.8 million." (p.1) New York City's purchases barely surpass less populous cities', for example, Philadelphia which purchased $15,431,280 worth of recycled-content products in FY98, a 56 percent increase over the prior year.11

According to the DCAS report, only 15 printing contracts issued during FY97/98 mandated the use of recycled paper. In contrast, the State of New York and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts mandate the use of recycled-content paper for all of their print jobs.

Finding #10. The Environmental Procurement report contains little information about the percentage that recycled-content items represent within each product category. It provides some context for recycled paper products, indicating that the 36 awards during FY97/98 represent "89% of the dollar value of paper procured." (p.4) However, the information on print jobs and non-paper items is confusing and scant. For example, the report contains confusing information about the number of print jobs containing recycled content. It states that the dollar amount given "represents 66% of the total value of print jobs contracted." But a closer review of the data and text reveals instead, that it represents only 66% of those print jobs DCAS deems to have "recycled potential." This may mean that if a specification was never changed it would not be deemed to have recycled potential. There is no indication about how decisions were made about whether a print job has recycled potential.

Finding #11. Several of the items listed in the FY97/98 DCAS report contain no post-consumer recycled content or provide no detail on the type or amount of recycled content.

The 100% post-consumer content fiberboard contract awarded in November 1996 is a good example of recycled-content procurement during FY97/98.12 It contains 100% post-consumer recycled content and is valued at $43,050. Procurement of products with post-consumer recycled content is critically important for New York City because it helps to promote strong markets for the materials collected in curbside and office recycling programs and helps to prevent waste from those sources from going to landfills or incinerators.

However, three items in Table 4 (Non-paper Items With Recycled Content) reportedly contain 0% post-consumer recycled content. For example, the absorbent compound purchased by NYC is an innovative product made from corncobs, but it contains no post-consumer recycled material. Varieties of this product with post-consumer recycled content are available on the market. Further, several of the recycled-content purchases for paper products, print jobs and other items do not provide any detail on the type or amount of recycled content used. In addition, there is no detail provided about the types (and recycled content) of items purchased off the Staples contract.

Finding #12. There are several inconsistencies between the dollar amounts reported in the tables and in the text of the FY97/98 Environmental Procurement report.

For example, the text of the report states that, "[d]uring Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998, DMSS awarded a total of 13 contracts for non-paper recycled products which are estimated at a market value of $10.816 million." (p.5) However, Table 4 (Contracts for Non Paper Products with Recycled Content) gives a total of $12,130.098. And again, on page 5, DCAS reports that "[I]n Fiscal Year 1997, DMSS procured approximately $20 million of asphalt containing recycled content, and $16 million in Fiscal Year 1998." Asphalt mix is represented in Table 4, and therefore presumably included in the total non-paper product purchases of $12 million. It is impossible for the reader to determine the City's actual environmental procurement activities given these contradictions.

Finding #13. Many of the contract award dates in Table 4 for Non-paper Recycled Content Items do not fall within FY97/98, the time period for the report.

The FY 97/98 report appears to overestimate the amount of non-paper recycled content purchases by including contracts that were issued in FY95 and FY96. This includes a $5.45 million contract for asphalt mix that was issued in April 1995 and that ended in December 1996 - yet it was attributed as a FY98 purchase in Table 4.

If DCAS were to use the same methodology for Table 4, (Non-Paper Recycled-content Products,)13 as it did in Tables 2 and 3, (Recycled-content Paper Products and Printing Contracts,)14 i.e., the entire contract amount is credited to the year it was issued, then none of the contracts listed in Table 4 would be included as FY98 purchases as the table is named. Only three contracts would be included as new purchases in FY97. Those value only $898,275-less than $1 million. Two additional contracts, valuing $1.31 million have no contract dates listed in Table 4 but correspond to a remanufactured furniture contract and purchases of recycled-content items purchased from Staples Office Supply store that are mentioned in the text. Thus, approximately $3.2 million worth of recycled-content non-paper products appear to be legitimately included in this section of the report ­ rather than $12.1 that is listed in Table 4.

Finding #14. Most of the product descriptions, contract numbers, award dates and terms, and contract values in Table 4 of the FY97/98 Environmental Procurement report are identical to those in Table 4 of DCAS's FY96 Environmental Procurement report.

At least eight of the 15 contracts listed in FY97/98, valued at more than $4.5 million, were reported in both the FY96 report and the FY97/98 report. They represent 30 percent of the total value of the 16 contracts reported in FY96 and 37 percent of the value of the 15 contracts reported in FY97/98. The two reports contain identical product descriptions, contract numbers, award dates and terms, and contract values for eight non-paper products with recycled content. Another four contracts, valued at more than $6.7 million, are reported very similarly, i.e., the FY96 and FY97/98 tables report either the same contract number or the same amount. These four represent an additional 42 percent of the FY96 total for this category, and 55 percent of the amount reportedly contracted in FY97/98. If all 12 of these contracts have been double counted, less than $1 million of the $12 million reported in new contracts for non-paper recycled products would actually represent new purchases in FY97/98.

The text about these items is also very similar between the two reports, with only the date of the contract award missing in many cases in the latest report. This presents the appearance of double counting.

Finding #15. DCAS reportedly purchased a much smaller number of non-paper recycled content items in FY97/98 than in FY95. (As mentioned above, the items reportedly purchased in FY96 were virtually identical to those in the latest report.)

DCAS's FY95 Environmental Procurement report states, for example, that DCAS procured re-refined lubricating oil, recycled antifreeze, and recycled-content traffic cones and barricades, ceiling tiles, chair mats, dust pans, pavement markings, plastic pilings and polyethylene stretch film. None of these recycled-content items were reportedly purchased by DCAS in FY97/98.15 Only two items were included in FY97/98 that were not contracted for previously: office supplies (through Staples) and remanufactured furniture.

Finding #16. The FY 97/98 Environmental Procurement report does not indicate that it is printed on recycled-content paper, as previous years' reports have done.

 



Future Outlook On Recyclable Procurement Activity

While the FY97/98 Environmental Procurement report claims that "the future outlook on recyclable procurement activity within the City of New York is positive," it provides no basis for this statement. Moreover, it fails to address why the City's procurement of products with recycled content has declined during FY97/98, and why their purchase of waste-reducing products is so limited.

It also states that, "[t]he City of New York has maintained a leadership position in recycled products procurement. During Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998, we purchased a wide variety of recycled products, valued at approximately $35 million" (p.12). INFORM's analysis shows that both the gross amount spent on recycled content and waste-reducing products and the variety of products is declining. The $35 million in spending reported represents a decline of more than 30% over the previous two years, and New York City's performance falls behind other cities and states in the region. In addition, this amount may be grossly overstated.

INFORM remains committed to assisting the City of New York in truly taking a leadership position in the procurement of products that "maximize the City's resources while minimizing waste" (p. 12).

INFORM sees many opportunities for DCAS and other City of New York government agencies to procure recycled-content and waste-reducing products in the coming year. As a first step, INFORM recommends that the City look for opportunities to purchase more of the 36 items that the EPA has determined are available at a reasonable price and that meet federal performance specifications. Further recommendations are included at this reports conclusion.

DCAS indicates that it will work with the NYC Department of Sanitation (DOS) and its contractor, Science Application International Corporation (SAIC), to revise "procurement specifications to promote waste prevention, recyclability and/or recycled content" (p.12). In order for this process to be effective, INFORM recommends that the SAIC study be made publicly available as soon as possible and the process be made as open as possible.

 



Review of Bid Specifications and New Contracts

Finding #17. DCAS has expressly prohibited the use of recycled-content paper in at least one case ­ with no justification provided.

INFORM is currently reviewing newly issued bid specifications and recently awarded contracts to determine the extent to which the City is now asking for and purchasing recycled-content and waste-reducing products. In the preliminary stages of this effort, we have identified contracts that expressly prohibit the use of recycled content. For example, in September 1999, DCAS issued a bid for the Department of Health, that specifically required: "All forms will be printed on virgin paper. DOH will not use Recycled Content Paper. (DCAS, Bid Book, Print: Forms for Health Department, Bid 9901062, Bid Opening, 9/2/1999, p. C- 001). This is occurring despite the fact that several major corporations offer forms with recycled content; other government entities such as the State of Massachusetts have their forms printed on recycled paper16 and EPA guidelines recommend the use recycled content forms.

 



Interview of Vendors

Finding #18. In at least one case, the NYC government purchased only virgin items from companies that also sell comparable recycled-content items.

Reviewing contract summaries for items purchased by the City has enabled us to identify numerous City vendors. INFORM spoke with four tire vendors listed in the City Record about six contracts they hold that were issued by the NYC government between September 1, 1998 and August 30, 1999 and are valued at about $2.5 million. While all four vendors offer retread tires, all six City contracts specified new tires only.17

 



Survey of NYC Government Purchasing Agents

INFORM is currently surveying City agencies to determine their current environmental procurement policies and practices. For example, one City agency told INFORM that while they purchase duplexing printers, this waste-saving feature is often not utilized because employees have not been properly trained on how to use this equipment. Information from these surveys will be combined with our other contract research to develop a report card on the City's waste prevention initiatives. They have also helped us to identify recycled-content and waste-reducing goods and services that they are purchasing that are not included in the DCAS report.

 



Recommendations

The City could greatly improve its performance with regard to environmental purchasing by appointing at least one Environmental Purchasing Coordinator to focus on strengthening markets for materials recycled in the City, reducing costs, and supporting jobs and economic opportunity in recycling and reuse businesses through targeted purchasing. This staff would manage the City's implementation of the Mayor's Directive #96-2, Waste Prevention and Efficient Materials Management Policies, as well as the recycled-product purchasing requirements in Local Law 19 and would implement the following key steps to substantially reduce waste and save money:

New York City could implement the following steps as a critical part of a Waste Prevention Plan to substantially reduce its waste disposal costs:

INFORM is committed to helping the city implement these and other cost-effective waste prevention initiatives.

For more information contact INFORM, 5 Hanover Square, Floor 19 , New York, NY 10004-2638; (212) 361-2400; fax (212) 361-2412.

 



Notes

1 "Waste prevention means a reduction in the quantity and/or toxicity of solid waste through practices such as: reusing products and packaging; using durable products, including products that offer extended warranties; avoiding or reducing the use of products or packaging by purchasing products in bulk or in concentrate or by other means; avoiding or reducing the use of products or packaging that contain toxic constituents, or eliminating or reducing toxic constituents in products or packaging; or other measures that prevent waste." (See the Department of Sanitation (DOS) City Agency Waste Prevention Guide at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dos/html/bw_wast/index.html for guidance.)

2 Note: Mention of a daily waste reduction target for each city agency was dropped from subsequent Mayor's Management Reports.

3 Note: These statements were provided in the Department of Sanitation section of the Mayor's Management Reports. There is no mention of the Directive in the Department of Administrative Services (DCAS) section of the report, even though most waste prevention programs would involve changes to the City's procurement policies and practices, and DCAS is specifically mentioned in the Directive.

4 Note: When used in this subdivision, 'practicable' means capable of being used without violating the following criteria: performance, availability at a reasonable price, availability within a reasonable period of time, and maintenance of a satisfactory level of competition.

5 Note: Discussions INFORM has had with Staples indicates that they have phased out the use of this catalog.

6 Note: It would be more appropriate to call this section reuse, sale, and recycling of surplus items. As it is written, it appears as if OSA is discarding recyclable items. DCAS should also note in its introduction that it sometimes enters into recycling contracts for surplus property. As it is written, the introduction leads the reader to believe that OSA is literally "mandated to properly dispose of all surplus property by administering waste disposal contracts" (p.11, emphasis added).

7 INFORM's review of the City Record for the following year, (from September 1, 1998 to August 31, 1999), for example, indicates that more than $2,664,172 in furniture contracts were issued by the City during that time period.

8 More information is available at www.epa.gov/cpg.


9 In addition, the value of print and paper contracts did not substantially increase in FY97/98 compared to FY96, despite the indicated market trend acknowledged by DCAS that, "During Fiscal Year 1997, the pulp and paper prices stabilized for the first time since 1994, thus reducing the cost of recycled paper" (p. 4).

10 DCAS currently lacks an environmental purchasing coordinator to identify new recycled-content products and work with other agencies to specify them.

11 City of Philadelphia Buy Recycled Program, Annual Reports, FY97 and FY98.

12 Note: Although issued in FY97, this contract value is also included under DCAS's FY96 Environmental Procurement report. See Table 4.

13 This table seems to be mislabeled.

14 As noted earlier, in Tables 2 and 3 ­ as in earlier DCAS Environmental Procurement report ­ contracts appear to be credited entirely to the year in which they were awarded.

15 Table 6, "Contracts for Non-paper Products with Recycled Content," Environmental Procurement: Report by the Department of General Services, Fiscal Year 1995, William Diamond, Commissioner.

16 Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Operational Services Division, Recycled and Environmentally Preferable Procurement Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1997.

17 The City Record is the official newspaper of the City of New York. It provides notices of all contracts and purchases over $25,000.

 
 
    This site was built with help of these generous techies and companies. |  DHTML JavaScript Menu By Milonic.com  |   Tour new site features