Laserfiche WebLink
<br />88 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br /> TA.flLE.1 <br /> PROPOSEREVALuATIONSCQRE <br /> I ... <br /> 0 <br /> -;.. <br /> I 10., n5' >oj <br /> ,: , Max ~ co .!:! ~. <br /> vi C. <br /> "0 '""'. t: 0 ~ j5 J: <br /> Item ~ $tor,e C1I III ~ ..... <br /> ~ en ~ "0 10. Q, =: <br /> W ~. 0 0)' o. <br /> < co C),' :J: Z 0:: or <br /> 1 Responsiveness to RFP Pass/Fail P P P P P P P <br /> ~. - --1-- - <br /> 2 Company's Qualifications & 100 81.5 73.5 I 85.8 84_5 74.5 84 <br /> Experience '- ~ I <br /> ----L --- <br /> 3 Cost Proposal 100 81.8 70.4 64.9 79.1 72 62 II'" 86 ""'" <br /> ~ <br /> 4 SRDC Operations Proposal 100 67.8 80 64.5 1(87.3 75.5 63.8 86 <br /> -~ <br /> .----- .-- l" 68.6'""" <br /> 5 MRF Design, Installation & Start- 75 58.5 65.3 63 61.9 65.3 59.6 <br /> up Proposal ~ <br />I 6 Materials Marketing Plan 75 62.6 60.8 42.8 66 i 60.8 55.9 V74~ <br />I I I~' <br /> 7 Environmental Enhancements & 25 15 15 i 15 10 V22.5'~ 10 i 18.8 I <br /> i <br /> Other Considerations .- ..- .- ~, <br /> -- <br /> 8 Number & materiality of 25 ~ ~p 0 25 ~~ 0 22.5 <br /> exceptions ~ <br /> Tota:l 5 core 500 392 405 324 422 4()2 3S2 """431' <br /> ~ <br /> I -- <br /> J{anklng ~. I 5 3 7 2 4 6 1 <br /> -- <br /> <br />The Selection Committee's final recommendation of SBR was based on extensive <br />analysis and comparison of the two short-listed companies. In the March 18th report, <br />the Selection Committee concluded that lithe difference in costs proposed by the two <br />short-listed firms is significant and is not offset by the consideration of any other <br />elements of the two proposals" (the final cost proposals by the two companies are <br />shown in Table 2 below). In summary. <br />. SBR is approximately $2.3 million per year lower in operating costs than HBC ($1.6 <br />million when HBC revenue guarantee is considered). This calculation of the value of <br />HBC's revenue guaranteed assumes that the price received for the sale of recycled <br />materials equals or exceeds $119 per ton. As of January 2009 these prices were <br />approximately $136 per ton. <br />. SBR is approximately $1.6 million lower than HBC's proposal for facility equipment <br />costs (one-time capital expense). <br />· The difference could be approximately $800,000 - $1 million greater if HBC has <br />assumed that the disposal ratepayers will absorb the labor cost increase that could <br />result from HBC's signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the <br />Teamsters' Union (Teamsters). <br />