Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 13 <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT 1 <br /> <br />envisioned a short-list being developed prior to technical interviews. AU seven proposers <br />participated in the technical interview and presentation process. <br /> <br />Each Evaluation Committee member individually reviewed and scored each evaluation criterion <br />based on a maximum allowed score for each category. The total maximum score was 500 points. <br />Table 3' shows the Evaluation Criteria, the maximum allowed scores for each criterion, and the <br />actual scores as totaled from individual evaluations. The Table also illustrates the SBWMA's <br />point evaluation score of each firm's qualifications, technical proposal, cost proposal, and'other <br />considerations. . <br /> <br />The results were jointly discussed at three separaie meetings with the Selection Committee. At <br />the last meeting on June 25,2008, the Selection Committee unanimously approved the <br />Evaluation Committee's recommendation to short list SBR and HBC/WSG. <br /> <br />Table 3: Proposer Evaluation Score for the Facility Operations Contract <br /> <br /> , MAX <br /> CRITERIA. SCORE Allied BEST Greenstar HBC Norcal Re public SBR <br />1 Responsiveness to RFP Pass IF ail P P P P P P P <br />2 Company's Qualifications 100 81.5 88 73.5 85.8 84.5 ' 74.5 84 <br />& Experience <br />3 Cost Proposal 100 81.8 70.4 64.9 79.1 72 62 86 <br />4 SRDC Operations Proposal 100 67.8 80 64.5 87.3 75.5 63.8 86 ' <br />MRF Design. & Installation <br />5 Start-up Proposal 75 58.5 65.3 63 68.6 61.9 65.3 59.6 <br />6 Materials Marketing Plan 75 62.5 60.8 42.8 66 60.8 55.9 74.3 <br />7 Environ. Enhancements 25 15 1'5 15 10 22.5 10 18.8 <br />8 Number & Materiality of 25 25 25 0 25 25 0 22.5 <br />Exceptions <br /> TOTAL SCORE 500 392 405 324 422 402 332 431 <br /> RANKING . ~ 3 Z g ~ 2 1 <br /> <br />The scores assigned to each of the proposal's criteria reflect the extent to which the proposer <br />fulfills the requirements of the evaluation criteria and meets the needs of the S13WMA relative to <br />the other competitors. Each evaluator reviewed each of the proposals and cost information using <br />a set of established criteria. <br /> <br />SB WMA fS Recommendation for Shoreway Faci.litJ1. Operator <br /> <br />Based on a review of the seven proposals submitted, technical interviews, site visits, follow-up <br />qu.estions and answers, and reference checks and litigation review, the Selection Committee, <br />which was chaired by the SBWl\1A's Executive Director, initially recommended that SBR and <br />HBC be short listed for negotiations to determine the selected facility operations contractor. <br /> <br />9 <br />