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

Browse Search

7A Page 40 ATTACHMENT 2 To ensure that the RFP process for both services was conducted with integrity and transparency, input was solicited from elected officials, potential proposers, consultants and other stakeholders on draft copies of the RFP documents. The final RFPs issued incorporated this valuable input, and each was a comprehensive document that clearly and concisely detailed the rights reserved by the SBWMA and Menlber Agencies, and the future companies, how the evaluations would proceed, the make-up of the evaluation teams, the specific evaluation criteria and distribution of evaluation points, and specifically how items such as exceptions or alternative proposals were to be submitted and the implications for not complying with these requirements. The RFPs were issued in Novelnber 2007 after a thorough review and approval process that included a governing body re~olution from each SBWJ\1A Member Agency. A pre-proposal meeting was attended by all proposers. Several necessary addenda were subsequently issued providing clarifications and improvements to the RFP processes. Four responses to the Collection Services RFP and seven to the Facility Operations RFP were received in March 2008. During the proposal evaluation process, all of the proposers were interviewed and numerous site visits conducted by the respective RFPs Evaluation Committee members. A thorough litigation history review and analysis was conducted by outside counsel. Each proposer provided public presentations in support of its proposals. The RFPs prescribed that an Evaluation Committee and Selection Committee for the Collection Services procurement, and a separate Evaluation Committee and Selection Committee for the Facility Operations Services would be created to review and evaluate the proposals. SBWMA purposefully created two separate committees for each RFP comprised of different individuals to ensure a checks-and-balance approach to selecting the next service providers. Once again, it is important to note that these documents were vetted over several months and ultimately approved via resolution by each governing body of the SBWMA Member Agencies. The Evaluation Committees' role was to conduct a detailed evaluation of the proposals) rank proposals, and provide comparative descriptions of the proposals. The Selection Committees were tasked with reviewing the proposals and the evaluation summary information presented by their respective Evaluation Committee, requesting additional data and analysis as necessary, and developing their recommendations for consideration by the SBW1-fA Board. All four cormnittees were provided with clear guidelines on how to proceed with the evaluations and scoring. These guidelines were based on the detailed criteria and maximum scoring that was prescribed in the RFP documents for the proposers to ensure that the evaluations were independent, thorough and fair. The SB"%~ Board was tasked with reviewing the Selection Committees' separate recommendations for Collection Services and Facility Operations Services and either approving the recommended companies or proceeding with different options. Once approved by the Board, there was a fmal opportunity to review the RFP process and SBWMA's recommendations when they were presented to each Member Agencies' governing body for consideration and approval. In addition) the City of San Mateo retained an independent consultant to review the Collection Services RFP evaluations of two proposals to ensure they were done appropriately. The independent consultant's findhlgs concurred with the recommendation for the future service SBWMA Grand Jury Response_Addendum I.doc Page 8of9