Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 49 <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT 2 <br /> <br />were privy to how the other members scored the proposals. This confidentiality in scoring proposals <br />was maintained to ensure a fair process. While the Evaluation Team did meet to discuss the merits <br />a.nd shortcomings of the proposals and numerous other aspects of the evaluation (including sharing <br />their own relevant industry related experiences with these and other companies and procurements)~ <br />the individual specific scoring was not discussed. <br /> <br />6.2 Evaluation Criteria <br />Proposals will be numerically scored and ranked using the criteria and weighting described in <br />this section. The scores assigned will reflect the extent to which criteria is fulf1lled relative to <br />other proposals. Furthermore, scores will reflect the benefits to the entire SBWMA service <br />area or service District as a whole, rather than individual benefits to each 1-fember Agency. <br />The evaluation criteria and !lliL,.dlTIUm score that can be achieved for each criterion is <br />presented in Table 6-1. <br /> <br />Table 6-1 <br />Evaluation Criteria and Maximum Evaluation Score <br /> <br />Cdteria ~'laximllm E\ alllatioll Score <br />Responsiveness to RFP Pass/ fail <br />Company qualifications and experience 150 <br />Proposal for collection services (Includes both 150 <br />Core and Optional Services) <br />Cost proposal 200 <br />(Includes both Core and Optional Services) <br />Alternative technical proposals Score, if any, to be detenmned (SB WMA <br /> and Member Agencies are not obligated <br /> to evaluate alternative proposals) <br />Other matters of concern to the SBWMA Board To be determined if <br />and Member Agencies' Council/Boards additional criteria are added <br />Number and Materiality of Exceptions 50 <br />Environmental Enhancements 50 <br />Total Maximum Score 600 <br /> <br />Member Agencies reserve the right to act in the best interest of its' residents and businesses, <br />including the right to reject a proposal that is given the highest quantitative scoring in the <br />evaluation process if the proposal is not in the best interest of residents and businesses. <br />The potential factors that may be considered by the Evaluation Team when developing the <br />score for each criterion are presented below. <br /> <br />6.2.1 Responsiveness (Pass/Pail) <br />Proposer must be fully compliant with the RFP and procurement procedures as <br />demonstrated by submittal of all elements required by Sections 3 and 5; full <br />completion of all cost proposal forms required in Section 5.6; compliance with <br />process guidelines presented in Section 4; and adherence to the code of conduct <br />signed by the proposer. <br /> <br />SBWMA Gnlod Jury Response_Addendum 2.doc <br /> <br />Page 8 of 17 <br />