AgdaPkt 2008-09-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

78 Page 2 . Norcal Waste Systems of San Mateo County ("Norcal"). . Republic Services of California, Inc. ("Republic"). Section 6 of the RFP prescribed a thorough process to evaluate the proposals received. The evaluation process set forth in the RFP required using an Evaluation Team and Selection Committee. The Evaluation Team was to be comprised of SBWMA staff, member agency staff, industry experts and/or consultants to analyze, score and rank the proposals in order to formulate a recommendation for the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee was to be comprised of representatives from the Member Agencies and this Committee was charged with reviewing the proposals, adjusting the rankings (if appropriate) put forth by the Evaluation Team, recommending award of contracts for both the North and South Districts and presenting this recommendation to the SBWMA Board. The Evaluation Team consisted of: Kevin McCarthy, SBWMA Executive Director; Cliff Feldman, SBWMA Recycling Programs Manager; Marshall Moran, SBWMA Finance Manager; Tim Flanagan, Monterey Regional Waste Management District Assistant General Manager; and R3 Consulting staff Richard Tagore-Erwin, Principal and Ric Hutchinson, Principal. The Selection Committee consisted of: Larry Patterson, City of San Mateo (Committee Chair); Jim Hardy, City of Foster City; Peggy Jensen, County of San Mateo; Jesus Nava, City of Burlingame; Brian Ponty, City of Redwood City; and, Kent Steffens, City of Menlo Park. It is estimated that the members of the Evaluation Team collectively devoted over 3,500 hours to the review and analysis of the four proposals, site visits, and preparing reports. Moreover, it is estimated that the six members of the Selection Committee spent at least 60 hours each reviewing the proposals and the Evaluation Team's recommendations for a total of 360 hours. Redwood City's representative to the SBWMA has devoted at least 200 hours to this process since its inception in 2005. The Evaluation Team and Selection Committee members conducted a thorough analysis and evaluation of the four proposals received and based scoring and ranking on the following information and sources: . Original proposals submitted by each company on March 11, 2008. . Responses to correspondence issued by the SBWMAon March 14, 2008 and due back by March 21, 2008 requesting general clarifications and revisions to the cost proposal forms submitted. . Responses to correspondence issued by the SBWMA on March 27, 2008 and due back by April 1, 2008 requesting specific clarifications and revisions to the cost proposal forms submitted. . Responses to correspondence issued by the SBWMA on April 9,2008 and due back by April 15, 2008 requesting clarifications and information on the technical proposal and cost proposal forms submitted. . Responses to correspondence issued by the SBWMA on April 25, 2008 and due back by May 12, 2008 requesting clarifications and information pertaining to the technical interview conducted and the cost proposal forms (i.e., each proposer was provided the opportunity to make any changes to the cost proposals submitted). 2