Laserfiche WebLink
<br />88 <br />Page 25 <br /> <br />. These companies offer a combination of experience, technical capability, and pricing <br />that set them apart from the rest of the field. These two firms had the two lowest overall <br />cost proposals. <br /> <br />. These two firms are the two most qualified single stream MRF operators and offer the <br />best commodity marketing capabilities. This is critical given the growing importance of <br />commodity revenues to fund SBWMA operations. <br /> <br />. Each of the two firms stand out financially with HBC offering the highest commodity <br />revenue guarantee at $10.1 million and SBR offering the lowest overall cost proposal. <br /> <br />. Each firm has a strong plan for increasing diversion at the transfer station and unique <br />attributes to their proposed transfer station operations. HBC put together the most <br />innovative base proposal for transfer station diversion, while SBR offers the highest <br />payloads and lowest cost transfer operation. <br /> <br />COST EVALUATION <br /> <br />Proposers were asked to provide detailed pricing information by completing cost forms provided <br />to them in RFP Attachments. The cost information provided by each proposer was entered by <br />the SBWMA and consultants into a Comprehensive Cost Proposal Summary. The summary <br />was used to compare the seven proposers' costs to evaluate their "competitiveness." The firms' <br />cost competitiveness relative to each other was determined using a formulaic approach. <br /> <br />The Cost Summary has now been revised to reflect the responses of HBC and SBR to <br />questions posed by the Evaluation Committee during interviews, teleconferences, and written <br />correspondence (see Cost Summary Appendix A). <br /> <br />REASONABLENESS, TESTING & FINDINGS <br /> <br />In addition to evaluating cost competitiveness, the Evaluation Committee members also <br />considered the reasonableness of the costs presented. In determining the reasonableness of <br />companies' proposed costs, equipment selection, labor, and operating assumptions were <br />considered against industry standards and the conditions at the Shoreway Recycling and <br />Disposal Center. During the proposal analysis, there were numerous rounds of questions and <br />cost form revisions conducted between the SBWMA and the proposers. The goal of this <br />process was to obtain complete and accurate information that could be compared between <br />proposers. At the conclusion of the cost proposal analysis, the SBWMA was able to <br />standardize the technical and cost proposal information submitted by the seven firms. <br /> <br />South Bay was ranked highest by virtue of the lowest overall cost proposal (originally $3.6M <br />annually lower than HBC). South Bay's scoring was reduced somewhat on "reasonableness" <br />due to the evaluation committee concerns regarding their low transportation costs, MRF sorter <br />requirement, and management/administration staffing levels. <br /> <br />Hudson Baylor was ranked second in overall service price, yet offered the highest commodity <br />revenue guarantee at $10.1 million. Their scoring was reduced somewhat on l'reasonableness" <br />due to proposing the highest capital cost for MRF equipment and installation at $19.8 million. <br /> <br />SBWMA - EC Report <br /> <br />Page <br />7 <br /> <br />1/15/2009 <br />