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

Browse Search

7A Page 37 ATTACHMENT 2 9. (Usted as a second #8 in the Report) It appears that the SBJl7.MA did not give sufficient consideration to SBR s notices of violation itl the operation of its S ollthem Califtrnia operations. Response: (Respondent disagrees with this Finding.) This statement is factually incorrect. The cited notices were investigated, analyzed, evaluated, and the company's initial and final scoring was downgraded due to these notices. Further, SBWMA staff continues to monitor monthly inspection activities at the Corrununity Recycling facility per the direction of the SBW1-fA Board. 10. The Grand Jury could not confirm that the proposals were adequatelY evaluated or rejkcled a thorough analYsis of the proposal content and contractor background. Response: (Respondent disagrees with this Finding.) The SBWMA and member agencies went to great lengths to ensure that open, transparent, competitive and effective procurement processes were pursued. As we shared with the Grand Jury, during the proposal evaluation process, all of the proposers were interviewed, numerous site visits were conducted by the respective RFPs Evaluation Committee members; a thorough litigation history review and analysis was conducted by outside counsel; and, each proposer provided public presentations in support of its proposal, which were also made available to all interested parties on the SBWMA website. After an exhaustive proposals review and evaluation process by both the Evaluation and Selection Committees which required hundreds of hours to complete, recommendations were presented to the SBWMA Board as to the selection of the future collection services and facility operations providers, and the recommendations to select Norcal and SBR were then presented to the Member Agencies for consideration. 11. SB W'MA .Executive Director t:haired three of the four Evaluation and Selection Committees until removed from the Shorewt!Y Facility Contract Selection Committee try the Chairman of tbe SBWMA Board. Response: (Respondent agrees partially with this Finding.) While this statement is accurate, it is misleading in that the statement does not disclose what the role of the Executive Director was as chairman. As chairman, the Executive Director's role was primarily an administrative one that consisted of setting committee meetings, setting agenda, etc. All evaluations of the proposals were done independently by the individual committee members separate from the committee meetings. The evaluations and scoring were done blindly by each committee n1ember without any influence by the Chairman. The SBWtvfA has no reason to believe the Executive Director exerted undue influence on the process, and the Grand Jury Report did not identify any specific instances of concern in this regard. 12. The SBWMA Executive Direttor solicited emaiLrjrom active propo.rcrs, asking them to attest to the integrity of the RFP process. Response: (Respondent agrees with this Finding.) This statement is correct. SBWMA Grand Jury Response_Addendwn l.doc Page 5of9