My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2009-08-24 clsd and reg
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2009
>
AgdaPkt 2009-08-24 clsd and reg
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2009 11:58:43 AM
Creation date
8/20/2009 2:22:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
8/24/2009
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.
/
325
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 />7A <br />Page 20 <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT 1 <br /> <br />8. SBR has asked the SBWMA to cover $1.2 million for mistakes and amiss,ions in its <br />original proposaL <br /> <br />8. It appears that SBWMA did not give sufficient consideration to SBR's notices of violation <br />in the operation of its Southern California operations. <br /> <br />10. The Grand Jury could not confinn that the proposals were adequately evaluated or <br />reflected a thorough analysis of the proposal content and contractor background. <br /> <br />11. SBWMA Executive Director chaired three of the four Evaluation and Selection <br />Committees until removed from the Shoreway Facility Contract Selection Committee by <br />the Chairman of the sa WMA Board. <br /> <br />12. The SBWMA Executive Director solicited emails from active proposers~ asking them to <br />attest to the integrity of the RFP process. <br /> <br />13. No elected officials are on S-BWMA's Board of Directors. <br /> <br />Conclusions <br /> <br />The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that the SBWi\1A did not follow <br />its stated goal to "conduct the RFP process with integrity and transparency." The Grand Jury has <br />no opinion on which contractors. should have been selected. However) the Grand Jury has no <br />confidence in the RFP processes by which the Collections Services Contractor and the Shoreway <br />Master Plan Facility Contractor were selected. <br /> <br />The Grand Jury further concludes that: <br /> <br />1. The structure of the Evaluation and Selection Committees lent itself to the appearance of <br />undue influence. <br /> <br />2. Whether or not ejected officials from the member agencies are on the SBWMA Board of <br />Directors, these elected officials are ultimately responsible for all actions taken by the <br />SBWMA. <br /> <br />3. After four years ofpreparation, staff time, and consultant fees, the RFP process was <br />poorly executed. <br /> <br />Recommendations <br /> <br />The 2008-2009 San Mateo' County Civil Grand Jury reCommends that the South Bayside Waste <br />ManageInent Authority (SBWMA) and its Board and designated elected officials of the 12- <br />member agencies [Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame) East Palo Alto) Foster City, Hillsborough, <br />Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, West Bay Sanitation District, and the San <br />Mateo County Board of Supervisors (on behalf of the unincorporated portions of San Mateo <br />County)]: ' <br /> <br />16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.