San Francisco’s quest to get a new and unique public trash can may finally be nearing an end.
San Francisco’s Office of Contract Administration has issued a notice of its “intent to award” the city’s trash can contract to Tiger Supplies Inc., the only qualified bidder for a contract of up to $10 million, according to documents obtained in public record requests.
Tiger will produce the city’s custom “Slim Silhouette,” one of three designs created for the city. The silver stainless-steel bin has a curved top that gives it an elegant profile unique to city trash cans, but were estimated to cost several thousand dollars each.
Only two companies sought the trash can contract, but one was disqualified: Architectural Brass, a manufacturer based in Atlanta, Georgia, was ultimately deemed “non-responsive” to the bid after it missed the deadline and did not use the portal designated by the city to submit its bid, according to Angela Yip of the Office of the City Administrator.
While the Slim Silhouette prototype cost a staggering $18,800, the cost to mass produce them was estimated in 2022 at $2,000 to $3,000.
Now, the city will pay $1,375 for each trash can, on orders of less than 3,000. If the city buys more than 3,000, it can knock $30 off each can. The initial request for proposals for the design of the trash can in 2018 imagined a can costing less than $1,000.
People in the trash-can-making business were not surprised that San Francisco’s proposal received only two interested companies.
The Slim Silhouette design was too high-end and too complicated to be manufactured, some said.
“Not many people I know in the industry have the capability” to fabricate it, said a manufacturer who preferred to remain anonymous to protect the company’s relationship with San Francisco’s Department of Public Works.
Most cities buy trash cans off the shelf, and the veteran manufacturer source remains perplexed as to why San Francisco is “so insistent” on its own design.
Tiger Supplies Inc. demonstrated in its bid that it had produced and delivered outdoor stainless-steel products at the requested volume to at least three clients over the past five years, according to the city. It remains unclear, however, whether Tiger has worked with any municipal clients before.
Tiger Supplies Inc. is owned by the New Jersey-based Tiger Companies, which develops and manufactures a variety of goods, such as office furniture, medical equipment, kitchenware, and janitorial supplies, according to its website. The company also has offices in China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Cambodia and India.
The company’s website does not mention manufacturing trash cans.
The city notified Tiger Supplies of its winning bid on June 30, according to documents. A proposed agreement dated May 8 of this year notes that the company will need to make at least 3,000 trash cans within the first two years. At that rate, Tiger Supplies Inc. will need to produce 125 cans per month.
The cans must “remain structurally sound … for a minimum of five years,” read the agreement, and last “not less than 20 years.” The city is still working with Tiger Supplies to formally finalize the contract, according to the city.
The contract does not specify how much the city is paying Tiger Supplies. The city’s initial request for proposal gave a range of $400,000 to $10 million.
But the May 8 proposed agreement notes that the Department of Public Works has over 3,000 public trash cans. To replace all of them at the price of $1,345 would be at least $4 million.
Yip of the Office of the City Administrator said panelists marked Tiger Supplies Inc. as having a “good response” or better in all categories, including “(a) overall relevant experience and role in successfully producing and delivering outdoor stainless-steel products similar to the product sought; (b) relevant experience, capacity and capabilities through previous project case study; (c) experienced staffing, team and company organization to deliver successful outcomes; and, (d) delivery approach.”
Tiger Companies did not return requests for comment. The Office of Contract Administration said the company’s proposal can only be viewed after the contract is executed.
Yet another epic waste of precious taxpayer money — everyone involved in this boondoogle should be canned!
When the kids ask where the money for their school went, point at the trash can.
It hardly matters what the can looks like. Real cities like NYC and London use a lot of plastic bags. It does matter how the trash from the cans is picked up. That is the job of Recology. When Gavin Newsom took out trash cans, saying they were responsible for trash on the streets, it obviously meant less work (labor costs) for Recology. Instead of focusing on style, why doesn’t ML report on the Recology contract with the City
Real cities, huh? Frisco has its problems but let’s not allow the desire to a score cheap shots interfere with our civic pride. Maybe move back to London or New York or whatever and enjoy some boiled kohlrabi while comparing Rolexes etc? Or have a nice day in California! ❤️
How long before they are vandalized by idiots who spray graffiti all over without worry?
Will dpw start to keep them washed and emptied ?
To date , the city is not able to maintain public property.
Worry about more taxpayer money down the drain .
I am sick to my stomach that we as a city are buying/spending money on beautiful garbage cans. The ones we have now work fine. We have much better things to spend this money on.
gavin newsom removed a bunch of them so we don’t have enough, actually.
When there’s only one qualifying bid submitted by a no-name company with no experience, that means there’s a problem with the RFP, not the bidders. They should go back to the drawing board.
Congratulations! To whom ever gets the contract, and I hope in addition to making the trash cans pretty, that they are also functional.
More wasteful spending in a design that will be quickly graffitied and/or thrashed but our open air insane asylum “neighbors”.
The bear saver cans were cost effective and could stand up to even the most unhinged meth head. Don’t like the handle? Similar options with narrow openings exist. Hell even adopt the great can options in neighboring cities like Portland and Seattle. Obviously all too logical of choices.
something stinky here.
Has the Inspector General looked at this ?
“This dog won’t hunt, Vern.”
Every day my dog and I pick up an average of 5 bags of trash and I take out the plastic liner from inside the old concrete base of our corner can and balance myself between the roof of the base and the door and get into the plastic can and stomp it til I can get double the usual trash into a unit.
Crude but efficient.
Reason I can remove the liner to do this is because the lock on the door was long ago kicked loose by trash guys employing the ‘easy close’ method after emptying the trash from the liner into a unit with wheels equipped to fit their truck’s loading thingee.
On units w/intact locks it is possible to squeeze the bags through the top slots that run the entire perimeter of the concrete units.
That, or just sit the bags alongside where scavengers are into them hourly.
I dare you to stuff a full orange bag of trash through the pigeon holes of the new cans.
No accident there I’m sure as they don’t want merchants getting rid of bags of their trash via City street containers which are for paper coffee cups and paper plates.
And, furthermore, one eligible bidder out of New Jersey ?
Kinda like how the same Trash ‘interests’ have been able to discourage other bidders over the last hundred years or so ?
And, the winner never made a trash can before ?
“May the Force be with your subcontract.”
I warned you about this when it came up in Budget negotiations, Mr. Mayor but either you ignored the advice or were so well siloed by then that you didn’t get it.
You just wasted 15 million dollars.
go Niners !!
h.