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

Browse Search

7A Page 44 ATTACHMENT 2 The second sentence requires clarification. First, it implies that Allied has contracts with the SBWMA for both collection services and "the disposal services of solid waste" (assuming the latter refers to the company's contract with the SB~f.A to operate the Shoreway Facility). However, the company does not and never has had a contract with the SBWMA for collection services, as each individual member agency contracts directly with the company for these services. In addition, the current contracts are set to expire on December 31, 2010. Comment #5 Page 2 - j~ electing the Collection S enJices Contract" section The Grand Jury report states: "1. The proposalJ"for collet:tion services were submitted /0 the SBW'M:A.}Or review and recommmdation. After the SB WMA recommendation was made, each member agenry was to negotiate an individual contract with the recommended provider, depending on the agenry's individua/11eeds." Tbe second sentence of this statement is incorrect. The RFP prescribed that. after evaluation of the proposals and approval of a recommendation by the SB\"(,1YfA Board, each Member Agency would then be provided the opportunity to consider the recommendation. The RFP specifically addresse.s this in section 1.2.1, Member Agency Roles and Commitment to the Process, as follows: "The SBWMA JPA does not bind Member Agencies to follow the recommendations of the SBW11A Board regarding selection of collection contractors." Comment #6 Page 2 - "s eleding the CoUection Services Contractl1 s~ction The Grand Jury report states: '2. There would be a one-year 'ruing HjJ period. . . " This statement is incorrect. There is no "truing up period." The RFP and Collection Agreelnent prescribe a process by which contractors proposed costs are adjusted based on indices and equitable adjustments are made based on changes in customer services levels from the 2008 data included in the RFP to more current data to when the new contract will take effect. Comment #7 Page 2 - "Selecting the CoUection Seroice.r Contract" section The Grand Jury report states: "3. Ail proposers were required, when preparing their proposals, to lIse the J"ame operational assumptions jo,. key items SlIch as re.ridential cart sizes, use of new collecti.on vehicles for core services, and lIse of new t'ommercial collection containers. Thir requirement was for the pi/pose of obtaining tomparable cost proposals from proposers. Member agencies retain the n"ghl to establish cart sizes for residents, use of used equipment, etc., as part of the final negotiated scope of services and costs with their selected contractor. " The RFP did not require proposers to use the same operational assumptions. Each proposer was to apply its own operational assumptions and business practices in order to allow each company's own unique competitive advantage to shine. The RFP required proposers to describe their own unique operational assumptions including: "routing strategy," "productivity assumptions," and "collection methodology" (source: Section 5.5 of the Collection Services RFP). SBWMA Grand Jury Response_Addendum 2.doc Page 3 of 17