AgdaPkt 2009-08-24 clsd and reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 8 ATTACHMENT 1 The Evaluation Committee was chaired by the SBWMA Executive Director and also included the SBWMA Recycling Programs Manager, the SBWMA Finance Manager, a representative from a nearby regional waste management district, and two consultants, who were partners in the same consulting finn. The Selection Committee consisted of six SB WMA Board member representatives and included the SBWMA Board Chairman, who chaired the Selection Committee. How the Proposal was Scored The Evaluation Committee evaluated and numerically scored the companies' proposals. The ratings from the evaluators were compiled and discussed during several Evaluation Committee meetings to determine a preliminary ranking of the proposals based solely on the evaluation criteria. Each evaluation criterion was divided into two parts: a 44competitive" part and a "reasonableness" part. In determuling the "reasonableness" points of a proposer's cost proposal, equipment selection, labor, and operating assumptions were to be "considered against industry standards" and against other proposals. The point allocation process was described by Grand Jury witnesses as Hhighly theoretical and subjective," with a potential for a li.mitless amount of "theoretical points" being combined with "actual competitiveness points" by the individual Evaluation Committee members, up to the maximum. score in each Evaluation Criteria category. Neither the individual members of the Evaluation Committee nor the Selection Committee were required to report how many overall points assigl.1ed to each criterion were based on "reasonableness" or ~'competitiveness." The Grand Jury received a paper titled "Solid Waste Management-A Guide for Competitive Contracting for Collection" written by a SBWMA consultant and was told that it was the guideline for the RFP. J Addressing "reasonableness," the paper states, "The municipality may choose to give each of the selection criteria equal consideration or to weight the factors in accordance with specific interests of the community. If the selection criteria are to be weighted, the municipality should precisely state the 'weighting fonnula. '" The criteria for judging contractors qualifications included: . "Experience providing like services - The municipality may not wish to risk contracting with an inexperienced company. Most municipalities prefer to have contractors that have experience providing similar services and a good track record with favorable references. . Legal encumbrances - Cities need to know with whom they are doing business. Are there financial or character issues regarding the company that has been determined in a court of law? - . Labor issues -This includes union and non-union lawsuits, for example. Does the company have a good relationship with its employees?H 1 "Solid-Waste Management" - A Guide for Competitive Cootracting for Collections -August 1996. p.7; Scarlett. Lynn; Sloan, I.M. 4