My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2009-04-13 clsd and jnt
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2009
>
AgdaPkt 2009-04-13 clsd and jnt
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/30/2009 12:54:16 PM
Creation date
4/9/2009 12:34:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
4/13/2009
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
267
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />88 <br />Page 117 <br /> <br />o Bid Error - During review of the company's cost forms, it was discovered that <br />SBR had forgotten to include certain benefit costs (estimated at $124K). <br /> <br />.0 Bid Error - During review of the company's cost forms, it was discovered that <br />SBR had forgotten to include the cost of leasing software necessary for the <br />function of the scale system (estimated at $42K). <br /> <br />o SBWMA Directed Change - SBR did not budget for a general manager in <br />their operating cost. Discussions with the SBR revealed that the company <br />planned to manage operations using a combination of local mid-level <br />managers (one in the transfer station and one in the MRF) that would receive <br />direction from the managers in Southern California. The SBWMA expressed <br />concern over this "remote management" plan and requested that SBR <br />provide an on-site general manager capable of providing local decision <br />making as well as respond to the concerns and reporting requirements of the <br />hauler and SBWMA. SBR responded by adding a general manager <br />(approximately $170K added to the-operating cost proposal). <br /> <br />o SBWMA Directed Chanae - Similar to the discussion above, SBR planned to <br />provide accounting and clerical support from SBR's offices in Southern <br />California. While it may be feasible to perform accounting functions remotely, <br />the SBWMA feels strongly that the Shoreway operation should have a fully <br />functional office, with full reporting capability where all paperwork is kept <br />locally, and where all records are readily accessible. SBWMA requested that <br />SBR make adjustments to their proposal to provide for a fully functional on <br />site office. Also, the company had not budgeted for onsite personnel to <br />provide tours or community support activities. SBR proposed to add clerical <br />and tour support to the onsite operati ons at a cost of $161 K. <br /> <br />o Bid Error - During review of the company's cost forms, it was discovered that <br />SBR had neglected to include the cost of security and site landscape <br />maintenance (estimated at $126K and $24K respectively). <br /> <br />o Not Approved Chanoe - During review of the company's cost forms, it was <br />discovered that SBR had changed the fuel mileage (MPG) assumption from <br />their original cost proposal (estimated at $33K). Also in this cost category, at <br />the request of the SSWMA, SSC reversed cost of fuel increase to reflect the <br />change in diesel oil prices at the pump. <br /> <br />o Bid Error - During review of the company's cost forms, it was discovered that <br />SBR had forgotten to include certain sales taxes on the company-purchased <br />capital rolling-stock items (estimated at $36K). <br /> <br />o Not Aporoved Chanae - At the end of the SBWMA's review of the cost <br />changes by SBR there is still $159K in cost increases that could not be <br />allocated by SBR or the S BWMA. <br /> <br />The cost changes that were "directed by the SBWMA" are changes that the SBWMA <br />feels are essential to providing level of service and management. Bid errors items <br />should be evaluated by the Selection Committee and the Selection Committee should <br />decide if some or none of these changes should be a9cepted, and lastly, not approved <br />changes are items that the Evaluation Committee feels should be rejected by the <br /> <br />Facility Operations Evaluation Committee Report: 3/18/2009 <br /> <br />Page8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.