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

Browse Search

..... ...."........-.........---.... ... '."'--'......-. ......._~,.......^"...<..".__...M.................._._......... ....... ............ .........-.............-........"......-..-.-...----------..."--~-_........----.......--_...._-_.._..~-.._-...-.......-.._..........--..-r/!ii:, Page 30 i ATTACHMENT 2 Honorable George A. Miram. Judge' of the Superior Court July 28,2009 Page 3. '2 In futllrt ReqlleJI For Proposal prOt'f)sJ'cJ': u. Clearfy drjine and objedilJefy and ,,'oflsistent!y fJ/>pfy the (!t!al:Jfatioll cd/erta, JJ Response: The SB'WtvIA did clearly define evaluation criterw., and to the extent practical provided objective guidelines for the a.pplication of evaluation criteria. We believe that the two concurrent RFP processes, one for collection sCivices and another for tacility operations, were both conducted professionally and tho1:ougWy. The Evaluation and Selection Committees for each RFP m.eticulously followed and implemented the evaluation processes spelled out in the respective RFPs. lib. Provide jOr aTl appealr prot'tU btfore the final t:ontI'Pft'/s (Jre .rigfldd, " Response: A survey of 44 other California jurisdictions th~lt issued similar RFPs in recent years revealed that only two had hid protest provisions in their RFPs. Since these two RFPs are not Public Works ('bid" type procurelnents, inclusion of an appeals process is not standard practice. In fact, the SBwtviA RFP processes afforded stakeholders multiple opportunities to corn.lnent on the RFP documents. In addition, since the recommendations resulting from the RFP processes are ma.de via publicly noticed SBWM:A. Board meetings and Later considered at individual Member Agency' meetings, there have been multiple opportunities for public input from companies that participated in the RFTJ processes and/or other interested parties. In fact, tills is what has happened since September 2008 as dozens of public meetlngs have been held by the SBWMA Board and Member Agencies and many RFP patticipants voiced their opinions regarding the RFP recommendations. Lastly, the RFP process as proposed by the SB\VMA was reviewed in a.dvance by potential proposers and none commented on the lack of an appeals process or requested such a process. In sumnw:y ~ every decision made regarding issuance of the RFPs, lvlember Agency participation in the RFP processes, recommendations resulting from the RFP processes, Member Agency consideration of the recommendations, a.nd rvIetl1ber Agency approval of the recommendations via authorizing the SBW~iA to prepare a contract in the case of Facility Opeta.tions or executing their own contract for Collection Sen'ices has bee.n or will be done at publicly noticed meetings. ie. Assl/re the Plvposers thaI a!terna!ipe proPOS&rij' will he COfJJ1aeretl, " Response: The RFPs did provide assurance rh9Lt alternative proposals would he considered if submitted in compliance. wit.h the RFP. The submittal of a11 alternative p...opos~l was to be. treated with the same guidelines as a hase proposal) which required evaluation if submitted in accordance w.ith the RFP documents. Both RFPs addressed the submittal of alternative proposals in the same manner. During the RFP process one illtemative proposal was submitted by Allied \Vaste. and given consideration. The alternative proposal provided incompletejnf(mn~tion, and was not responsive to the IU;P. Follo\ving legal review, it was determined that the SBWrvV\ had no legal obligation to evaluate the Allied alternative proposal as it was