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

Browse Search

7A Page 35 ATTACHMENT 2 4. In tbe evaluation process, the "reasonableness"points were not distinguished from the (~ompetitiveness"points. Response: (Respondent disagrees with this Finding.) 'This statement is incorrect. The Collection Services RFP specified five criteria that contained 24 distinct and specific sub-criteria, as follows: . Qualifications and Experience - 7 . Proposal for Collection Services - 10 . Cost Proposal - 3 . Alternative Technical Proposals - none, since no points were specified . Exceptions - 2 (specific to the number and materiality of exceptions) . Environmental Enhancements - 2 The Cost Proposal criterion was the only onc where the "reasonableness" and "competitiveness" sub-criteria were used. Actually, the Cost Proposal criterion specified three sub-criteria, as follows: "reasonableness of cost proposals," "conlpetitiveness of cost proposals," and "value to member agencies." The achievable evaluation points for Cost Proposals were split equally between reasonableness/ competitiveness/value by each Evaluation Committee melnber. As it relates to the Facility Operations R.}-P, this Finding is also factually incorrect. The scoring of the Cost Proposals did, in fact, separately account for reasonableness and c01npetitiveness. 5. Neither the individ1lal members of the Evaluation Committee nor the individual members of the Selection Committee were required to report how ma1[Y of the overall points assigned to each critenon were based 0" "reasonableness" or '~ompetitilJCness. " Response: (Respondent agrees partially with this Finding.) 'Ibis statement is primarily incorrect. As stated above, only the Cost Proposal criterion was the only one where the specific Hreasonableness" and "competitiveness" and "value" sub-criteria were used in the Collection Services RFP. Roughly 900/0 of the evaluation points were reported by the Committees The Evaluation Committee provided the Selection Comnuttee and SBWMA Board infomlation on exactly how many of the overall points were assigned to each criterion, by each evaluator. This information was provided to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. The following additional information was also provided to the Grand Jury: ". . .Allied subtnitted the lowest cost proposal and was awarded the maximum points from each evaluator for [Cost Proposal] sub-criterion #2 'Competitiveness of Cost Proposals.' however, the proposal lost points ba.sed on the 'Reasonableness' and 'Value' sub-criteria as compared to the other proposers and was ra.nked second overall in the Cost Proposal criteria behind N oreal." As it relates to the Facility Operations RFP, the scoring of the proposals did, in fact, separately account for reasonableness, competitiveness and value. SB\X:'I\.1A Grand Jury Response_~-'\ddendum l.doc Page 3 of9