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

Browse Search

7A Page 33 ATTACHMENT 2 ADDENDUM 1 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FINDINGS The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Juryfound that: 1. In the proposal process, the requirement that aU proposers use the same operational assumptions to obtain comparable costs was t/Sfiul to evaluators but does not applY to the actual costs and contracts that the individual member agencies can negotiate. . Response: (Respondent disagrees with this Finding.) Proposers were not required to use the same operational assumptions. To ensure a comparable analysis of cost proposals and ensure a fair cost evaluation process, proposers were required to base their cost proposals on purchasing new collection trucks and containers. Since the $50+ million in capital equipment would primarily consist of trucks and containers, allowing proposers to include a myriad of different scenarios for the key capital purchases would certainly have resulted in apples-to-oranges cost proposals that could not be fairly compared against one another. The policy decision to require that cost proposals to include all new vehicles and containers was made in 2006 by the Process and Contracts Committee consisting of representatives from several tvfember Agencies. The RFP required that a Contractor is held to all operational assumptions and costs included in its proposal., If a Member Agency chooses to deploy used vehicles or equipment, then this would be negotiated by that. specific agency. Specifically) Section 5.5 of the Rf<1?) states in relevant part: "New vehicles are required for residential and MFD/Commercial/Member Agency collection services. (This requirement is pritnarily to ensure that comparable cost proposals are submitted. Member Agencies reserve the right to allow the contractor to provide used collection vehicles.) New or used vehicles may be used for on-call collection services, drop box service, and support vehicles." Lastly, it is important to note that drafts of the RI:.;p and contract documents were submitted to the proposers for their review and comment several months prior to the official release of the Rtl) and none objected to these cost provisions. 2. The process aI/owed for alternative proposals, yet they wero not roquired to be (,'o1zsidered. Response: (Respondent agrees partially with this Finding.) 'The statement is correct but requires that it be framed in the proper context. Section 6.2.5 of the RFP, in part, states: "SB~fA and Member Agencies are not obligated to evaluate or select alternative proposals. Alternative proposals will be considered by the SBW1v1A and Member Agencies if the SB~'11A and Member Agencies conclude, in their sole discretion, that the alternative proposals warrant evaluation and analysis.)) In addition) the RFP explicitly required proposers to state exceptions to the collection agreement attached to the RFP and support any alternative proposal, as follows: "Each exception or alternative must be presented separately by stating the specific exception or alternative, the suggested changes, if any, to the program or services related to the exception or SBWMi\ Grand Jury Response_Addendum l.doc Page 1 of9