Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 51 <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT 2 <br /> <br />5. Billing System - Compatibility of billing approach, procedures for handling <br />customers, and coordination plans with Member Agencies who perform sottle or <br />all of the billing activities. <br />6. Facilities for Equipment Maintenance. and Administration. Compatibility of <br />plan for providing the facilities needed for equipment storage and parking, <br />lnaintenance, and adtninistration. Level of assurance provided, if any, with <br />regard to site acquisition and timely development of necessary facilities. <br />7. Implementation Plan - Reasonableness of implementation schedule and ability to <br />meet deadlines (e.g., reasonableness of equipment procurement schedules, <br />implementation staffing levels, new corporation or maintenance yard <br />development, and contingency plans). <br />8. Potential Collection Impacts. Compatibility of plans for vehicle compliance with <br />State of California Air Resources Board rules; ability to respond to issues <br />identified during the environmental review, compliance, and permitting process <br />associated with the development of new facilities (if any are to be developed), <br />and hauling impacts (in terms of tOL'1l annual miles traveled compared to others) <br />related to distance between vehicle maintenance and parking facilities and <br />Shoreway facility. <br />9. Additional Member AgenGY Services. Reasonableness and reliability of proposed <br />collection methods, technology, equipment, and containers; reasonableness of <br />productivity and operating assumptions (i.e., number of routes, route drivers, <br />route hours, stops per route, and other operating statistics) for: <br />a. San Mateo County senrl.ce area <br />b. Atherton <br />c. Hillsboraugh <br />d. Redwood City <br />e. Burlingame <br />f. Foster City <br />g. City of San 1\1atea <br />10. Other Proposed Services. Compatibility of other services proposed by company <br />as per Section 3.15 of this RFP. <br />6.2.4 Cost Proposal (200 points) <br />1. Reasonableness of Cost Proposals. Logical relationship between proposed costs <br />and operational assumptions for the base cost proposal and the cost proposal for <br />additional Member Agency services. <br />2. Competitiveness of Cost Proposals. Cost competitiveness relative to other <br />proposals. <br />3. Value to Member Agencies. The level of value provided given the relative cost <br />far that service. <br /> <br />6.2.5 Alternative Technical Proposals (Maximum Score, if any, to be determined) <br />SB~1v1A and 1vlember Agencies are not obligated to evaluate or select alternative <br />proposals. Alternative proposals will be considered by the SBWMA and Member <br />Agencies if the SBWMA and Member Agencies conclude, in their sole discretion, <br />that the alternative proposals warrant evaluation and analysis. Such evaluation will <br />consider the reasonableness and reliability of proposed collection methods, <br />technology, equipment, and containers; and the reasonableness of productivity and <br />operating assumptions (i.e., number of routes, route drivers, route hours, stops per <br />route, and other operating statistics). <br /> <br />SBWMA Grand Jury Response_Addendum 2.doc <br /> <br />Page 10 of 17 <br />