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

Browse Search

7A Page 36 ATTACHMENT 2 6. The South Bqyside Waste Management Authont; J (SBW'lYfA) t'onsultant reported Ihat Norca/'s references in S an Jose were not checked. Response: (Respondent agrees partially with this Finding.) This statement is partially correct. R3 Consulting was charged with making the reference checks and despite attempting to contact San Jose representatives in accordance with the reference checks protocol used, they were unable to do so in order to include a reference from San Jose in the analysis. This does not mean that Norcal's experience in San Jose was not discussed and included in the evaluation of proposals. In fact, one of the primary attributes in selecting R3 Consulting to assist the SBWMA was the firm's direct experience with two recent RFP processes and contract negotiations in San Jose. This information was also provided to the Civil Grand Jury. In fact, letters from SanJose staff were also shared with the Grand Jury that documented the City's appreciation for all Norcal had done for the community. The implication that Norcal's expericnce in San Jose was overlooked is without merit. The five menlbers of the Evaluation Committee have a conlbined 120 years of recent experience in this industry in the Bay Area and large roll-outs of service are highly publicized) especially as noted, those that have problems. In addition~ the knowledge and experience of this group~ specific to the situation with Norcal in San Jose, was shared with the Selection Committee. 7. South Bqy &rycling (SBR) was the onlY proposer that did not provide for on-site ma1lagement in its original cost proposaL Response: (Respondent disagrees with this Finding.) 111is statement is incorrect. SBR proposed that the executive and financial management of the Shoreway facility would be directed from its headquarters and that all operations management functions would be completed by local Shoreway-based managers. \X1llle the type of management structure proposed by SBR is not unusual in municipal proposals, it wa.s deemed inappropriate for the Shoreway operation and was rejected by SBWMA. The SB\VMA directed SBR to add the cost of local executive management to its cost proposal. 8. SBR has asked the SBW'MA to cover $1.2 miilion for mistakes and omissions in its original proposal. Response: (Respondent disagrees with this Finding.) This statement is incorrect. While SBR did submit a revised cost proposal in late 2008 following requests from the Evaluation Committee for additional information, some of the cost changes were SB\V1-fA directed. The Evaluation Committee was concerned by the increases and the limited explanation and justification offered by the company for some of the rcvised cost proposal items. After several rounds of questions between the SBWMA and SBR, the SB\VMA received sufficient detail from the company to understand the reasons for company's proposed increase in costs. The cost changes fell into three categories: A.) operating costs changes that were directed by the SBWMA, B.) cost changes that were the results of proposer error or oversight, and C.) cost changes that were not discussed or approved by the SBWMA. The cost changes that were "directed by the SBWMA" are changes tha.t the SB\VJ\:rA feels are essential to providing the proper level of service and management required for this service area. The March 18, 2009 Evaluation Committee report further stated that, "If SBR is selected as the facility operator, the final decision for SBR to operate the Shoreway facility should be predicated upon successful negotiation of a ~fRF sorting system equal to or less than the cost proposed by the company.H The SBW1v1A is in current negotiations with SBR for the fmal agreement that is subject to approval by the SBWMA Board. SBWMA. Gl'and Jury Response_Addendum l.doc Page 4of9