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

Browse Search

7A Page 39 ATTACHMENT 2 CONCLUSIONS The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury conelrides that the SBWNlA did not follow its stated goal to uco1Jduct the RFP process with integrity and fransparenry." The Grand Jury has no opinion on which contractors should have been selected. H01vever, the Grand Jury has no confidence' in the m:7p processes Ify which the Collections Senitls Contractor and the Shoreway MasterPlan Facility Contractor were selected. The Grand Jury furlher concludes that 1. The structure of the Evaluation and Selection Committees lent itself to the appearance of undue influence. 2. Whether or not eiected officials from the member agencies are on the SB WMA Board of Directors, these elected ~fJicials are ultimatelY responsible for all actions taken by the SBWMA. 3. After four years qf preparation, st,!!! time, and consultant fees, the Rf"P process was poorlY executed. Response - Conclusions #1 & #3: Conclusions 1 and 3 are unfounded, and the SB\~MA strongly disagrees with the statements. The SBWMA and Member Agencies went to great lengths to ensure that open, transparent, competitive and effective procurement processes were pursued. The SBWMA and its J\.fember Agencies initiated the Collection Services and Facility Operations Services request for proposals (RFP) process in July 2005 to plan future programs and services, and select future contractors. 1be decision to proceed with the RFP process was lnade in concurrence by all 12 Member Agencies of the SBWMi\. One of the primary reasons was the fact that none of the existing contracts for Collection Services and Facility Operations Services had ever been subject to a competitive procurement/review process. .Another reason was the declining performance of the incunlbent collection/operator contractor. It should be noted that the contract with the SB\VMA to operate the Shoreway facility and the twelve individual contracts with the 11ember Agencies to provide Solid Waste collection services represent perhaps the largest exclusive contracts of their nature in the country. As such, this process has been closely monitored and highly anticipated by many in the solid waste industry. Feedback received from many Member Agencies and other jurisdictions praised the SB\1CTMA RFP process as being one of the most thorough they had ever seen. Most importantly, the RFP process was lauded by the proposers and other stakeholders. It was only after the release of dIe selection results that a few of the companies who were not selected began questioning the process and the results. This is an unfortunate outcome of many public solid waste procurement processes - and one that is not unique to the SBWMA. It is perhaps not totally unexpected in light of the significance of some of these contracts and efforts and costs expended by the proposing companies. The SBWMA'S RFP process entailed a four-year period for planning, soliciting, evaluating and selecting the future contractors to ensure that the l'vicmber Agencies' staff and elected officials, potential proposers, other stakeholders and the public had multiple opportunities for review and input. The SB~1YfA's goal was to select the best companies through a detailed and open evaluation process of the responses that could provide the desired services in the most cost- effective and environmentally superior manner. The SBWMA strongly believes this goal was achieved with the two companies selected. SBWM.1\. Grand Jury Response_Addendum 1.doc Page 7 of9