Laserfiche WebLink
<br />88 <br />Page 22 <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />Seven companies responded to the SBWMA's request for proposals (RFP) for Facility <br />Operations issued on November 1,2007. The Evaluation and Selection Committee members <br />originally evaluated the seven proposing companies and based scoring and final ranking on the <br />following information from the following sources: <br /> <br />. Original proposals submitted on March 4, 2008. <br /> <br />. Responses to technical and cost form questions sent out to proposers on April 1 , 2008 <br />and due back by April 7, 2008. <br /> <br />. 1-hour technical oral interviews held at the SBWMA offices on April 14-15, 2008. <br /> <br />. Site visits to proposer operations. <br /> <br />. Additional site visits that were conducted of MRF equipment installations in Seattle, San <br />Diego and Escondido. <br /> <br />. Responses to technical interview follow-up questions. These technical questions <br />provided proposers the opportunity to make changes to their cost forms. <br /> <br />. Other information submitted by proposers in response to requests by the evaluation <br />team. <br /> <br />. Information gathered from reference checks and other publicly available sources. <br /> <br />The Evaluation Committee members numerically scored proposing companies using the <br />evaluation criteria and weighting described in the RFP, Section 6 of the Facility Operations RFP. <br />The scores assigned to each of the proposals' criteria reflect the extent to which the company <br />fulfilled the requirements of the evaluation criteria and met the needs of the SBWMA relative to <br />the other proposers. <br /> <br />The Evaluation Committee went through an iterative process to evaluate the seven proposers. <br />Each evaluator reviewed each of the proposals and cost information using the established <br />criteria. <br /> <br />SBWMA - EC Report <br /> <br />Page <br />4 <br /> <br />1/15/2009 <br />