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

Browse Search

7A Page 9 ATTACHMENT 1 Members of the Evaluation Committee independently analyzed and scored the proposals. The results were jointly discussed at four separate meetings with the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee Wlanimously approved the Evaluation Committee's recommendation to select Norcal. On August 2~, 2008, Norcal was chosen by the SBWMA to be awarded. the Collection Services Contract for the ten.year period from 20] 1 to 2021. Each Evaluation Committee member individually reviewed and scored each evaluation criterion based on a maximum allowed score for each category. The total maximum score was 3,000 points. Table 1 shows the Evaluation Criteria, the maximum allowed scores for each criterion and the actual scores as totaled from individual evaluations. Cost Evall,ation Cost for services was worth 33% of the. total evaluation, more than any other criterion. The SBWMA and consultants entered the cost infonnation provided by each otthe four proposers into a Comprehensive Cost Proposal Summary. That summary was used to compare and evaluate their '~competitiveness." The final proposed costs fox: servicing the entire SBWMA jurisdiction are summarized in item four of Table 1. Table 1: Proposer Evaluation Score2 for Collections Services Contract. MAX EV ALUA nON CRITERIA EVALUATION SCORE ALLIED BEST NORCAL REPUBLIC 1 RESPONSIVENESS TO RFP P ASSff AIL N/A P P P P 2 COMPANY'S QUALlFICA TIONS 750 25% 551 665 647 661 AND EXPERIENCE PROPOSAL FOR COLLECTION 3 SERVICES iNCLUDES CORE AND 750 25% 453 638 653 Sl OPTIONAL SERVICES 4 COST PROPOSAL 1,000 33.30% 802 719 884 649 ENVIRONMENTAL 5 ENHANCEMENTS AND OTHER 250 8.30% 40 190 225 40 CONSIDERA TrONS 6 NUMBER AND MATERIAL TV OF 250 8.30% 250 215 250 20 EXCEPTIONS TOTAL POINTS 3000 100% 2096 2427 2659 1421 PERCENT OF TOTAL AWARDED 69.70% 80.900/_ 88.600,4 62.660/. RANKING 3 2 1 4 In Table 2, the following cost summaries were used to compare the four proposers' costs to evaluate their "competitiveness." SBWMA gave Allied fewer points based on the Evaluation Committee's subjective "reasonableness" determination. The SBWMA was infonned by Allied that its costs were lower because, as a large company, it had the potential advantage of hedging fuel costs. Also, due to Allied's size, the company that supplies new bins had agreed to roll out 2 An the tables are from the SBWMA sel~ction committee reports, although the tables are arranged differently in this report. 5