Laserfiche WebLink
<br />78 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />technical and cost specific questions, and technical interview performance) were the <br />most.thorough and complete. <br />. Norcal offers a combination of experience, technical ability, commitment to diversion <br />and high service delivery, and pricing that sets it apart from the other three <br />proposers. <br />. Norcal was awarded the most points for its cost proposal due to the strength of its <br />cost proposal in both competitiveness and reasonableness. While the costs <br />proposed were marginally higher than the lowest cost proposal from Allied Waste, <br />the supporting explanation and rationale provided for these costs was the most <br />thorough, complete and reasonable of all four proposals. <br />. The scope of services proposed by Norcal provides the highest comfort level of the <br />four proposers regarding the company's ability to ensure a smooth transition, <br />outstanding service delivery, accurate reporting, and consistently high diversion <br />rates. <br /> <br />In summary, the SBWMA Evaluation Team, Selection committee, and Board are <br />convinced that Norcal's proposal was superior to the proposals submitted by the other <br />waste haulers and will provide the best combination of garbage collection services, <br />recycling and diversion programs at the most reasonable price. Moreover, Norcal has a <br />very experienced and talented management team that will be able to deliver the <br />commitments contained within Norcal's proposal. <br /> <br />The SBWMA Evaluation Team did an outstanding job of analyzing the proposals and <br />presenting the results of their analysis in such a manner that the recommendation for <br />Norcal is very clear cut and unequivocal. <br /> <br />Proposers' evaluation scores are presented in Table A - Proposer Evaluation Score, <br />which shows scores for each proposer for each of the criteria. Bolded scores reflect the <br />best score within each criterion. <br /> <br />Table A <br />Proposer Evaluation Score <br /> <br /> <br />1) Res onsiveness to the RFP PasslFail nla P P P P <br />2) Company's Qualifications and 750 25% 551 665 647 661 <br />Ex erience <br />3) Technical Proposal for 750 25% 453 638 653 510 <br />Collection Services <br />4) Cost Proposal 1,000 33.3% B02 719 884 649 <br />5) Number and Materiality of 250 8.3% 250 215 250 20 <br />Exce lions <br /> 250 8.3% 40 190 225 40 <br /> <br /> <br />4 <br />