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

Browse Search

7A Page 45 ATTACHMENT 2 Specifically, the RFP did require proposers to base their costs on purchase of new collection trucks and containers, as set forth in section 5.5 of the RFP. However the number and type of both collection vehicles and carts was not prescribed in the RFP, as follows: ''Number of and description of the collection vehicles to be utilized (e.g. vehicle description, manufacturer and model number, cost, capacity, age, lease or ownership arrangements, etc.). New vehicles are required for residential and MFD/Commercial/Member Agency collection services. (This requirement is primarily to ensure that comparable cost proposals are submitted. Member Agencies reserve the right to allow the contractor to provide used collection vehicles.) New or used vehicles may be used for on-call collection services, drop box service, and support vehicles. Manufacturer's specifications of containers to be utilized. New Carts shall be provided for SFD and new or used containers (i.e., carts, bins and drop boxes) may be provided far MFD/Cammercial/Member Agency customers. It is anticipated that the current franchised hauler will neg-otiate with the selected proposer(s) to transfer ownership of all MFD commercial containers if the current hauler is not selected. However. proposers must base proposals on the assumption that new cartst bins and drop boxes will be purchased. (This requirement is primarily to ensure that comparable cost proposals are subtnitted. :tv1ember Agencies reserve the right to allow the contractor to provide used :rvtr-n commercial containers/bins.)" Comment #8 Page 2 - ('Selecting the Collection Services Contract" section The Grand Jury report states: "4. The proposers will be held to their bid assumptions cbtring the contract. For example, if a company states that thc price of gar is I 2.50 a gaUo1l i1l its bid, and the price of gas goes up, the barc contractual obligation will not change. Fluctuations arc limited to some CPI-type index. PresumablY, the compa'!} will buy, or har b01lght, oil ftlHres that secure the price. " 'Ibis statement is not accurate. Proposers needed to indicate how much money they would spend in 2011 on diesel fuel as stated in 2008 dollars. This numher would be increased annually by a specific fuel index published by the federal government. Comment #9 Page 3 - ('5 electing the Collection Services Contract" section The Grand Jury report states: (~. In order to submit a proposal, the fOlfpetitors had to agree not to appeal the process. " This statement is not incorrect. The only conditions on participation by proposers in the Rfi'P process were related to the submittal requirements specified in the RFP that included attending the pre-proposal conference, making a public presentation, facilitating site visits upon request, and submitting the required documents. In fact, the RFP was silent on the issue of an appeal process which is standard practice for procurements of this type. A survey of 44 other California jurisdictions that issued sinUlar RFPs in recent years revealed that only two had bid protest provisions in their RFP. Again, the SBW1iA. RFP was silent 011 the issue of protesting the process. However, since no binding recommendation would arise from the RFP process, it was clear from SBWf,,{A Grand Jury Response--.-\ddendum 2.doc Page 4 of 17