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

Browse Search

.v__....."".IlU~.nio::~~"ll..,....-__...._..h__l;_-....c__vk............-..v.._..~..__.._......-....~_p~..oql"'::tr'::,:"~.....,.......-.~..............._..................h.~.:ll.'V...r.........._......__.................v___................._.._.._.._~..~.... .~..~. .. .7. Page 31 ATTACHMENT 2 Honorable George A. Miram Judge of the Superior Court July 28, 2009 Page 4. submitted because it did not conlply with the RFP cost and exception requirements. Nevettheless~ the SBW1:1A actually accorded the lone alternative more consideration duo legally required. Had the SBmfA proposal evaluation process blindly included review of alternative proposals submitted not in compliance with the RFP documents or dUl1ng the proposal submission period, the fundamental premise of ensuring a fair, non-biased and transpatent procurement would have been compromised. t~. EIIJ7.fIYJ that l'epres(J1ItalilJtS f/'Om otherjllllsdictioJls are parlit'ipmtt.f 0/1 the committees, wId" Response This recommendation is unclear as to the whether the Grand Jury is recommending representatives from SBWMA :Member Agencies ar~ participants in the com.rmttees or representatives from outside of the SBWlvIA ate participants. TIle RFP process did include representatives from the lvlember Agencies. The Evaluation and Selection Conunittees for both the Collection Services and Facility Operations RFPs were cOlnprised of different SB\X1MA Board nlembers, and all of the rvIember Agencies were. represented on the PAF and PAC cOrrurllttees. If the intent of the recoll1mendation is to include representatives from non-SBWMA jurisdictions., we cannot understand why they should have any decision-luaking autho.rity in a local Rf1' process. We know of no odler jurisdictions that follow such a process. '~. E,UlIt-e thllt 110 Otl8 individHlIl ,:hair both t077l/nil/eM. II Response: This reco11'l.tnendation will be considered. Action (Applies' to Responses to Recommendation #2, including items a-e): At such time as there is a future RFP process for either franchise agreement, the concerns of the Civil Grand Jury Report will be taken into consideration by the SBW1-iA. This holds true fOI each of the successive recom.nlendations in this section regarding future RFP processes. A future RFP process ma.y not OCCllr for ten (10) years. H3. Amemllhe 10illt POWCf'j' ~1Jft})ori!y Agre~tJmlt to int'll/de elected '!./ficicds jrom member tigeflcies onto the SB ~Y/AiA Boord of Dit'ecto1:l. H Response: This recommendation is one for consideration by the i.l1dividu~,l governing bodies of the JP A N[en1ber Agencies which -have sole authority to amend the JPA agreement. The last. restatement of the JP A agre.ement in 2005 confIrmed Member Agencies' intent to continue to. appoint staff to. the SBWtvfA Board.