Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 41 <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT 2 <br /> <br />provider and stated that the evaluations were appropriately executed and fair. The report <br />specifically stated the following: <br />. "The selection process provided multiple opportunities for each of the Proposers to <br />provide details on their proposal. <br />. The Evaluation Committee members rated the proposals independently, not in a gt'oup <br />setting. <br />. The Evaluation Committee did not come to agreement before the scores were tallied. <br />. When the scores were compared, each of the evaluators had ranked each of the <br />Proposers in the same order. <br />. The Cost Proposals were fairly evaluated. TIle evaluation of cost not only evaluated the <br />base fee, but also the reasonableness of the amount. <br />. The process for the evaluation of the proposals was fair. <br />. The evaluation of the proposals was fair." <br /> <br />In conclusion, this exhaustive four-year process yielded two top-rated companies that met the <br />goals and objectives of the RFP process as established by the SBWMA and its Member Agencies <br />in a manner that was fair and with no undue influence. <br /> <br />Response - Conclusion #2: <br />The SBWMA Board strongly concurs with this conclusion. The SBWMA JP A agreement defers <br />all significant decisions affecting ratepayers to the governing bodies of the Member Agencies, <br />e.g. setting collection rates, authorizing frnnchises and approving the Shoreway operation <br />con tract. <br /> <br />SB\Vt\.iA Grand Jury Response_Addendum l.doc <br /> <br />Page 9 of9 <br />