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

Browse Search

7A Page 52 ATTACHMENT 2 At the SBWMA's and/or Member Agencies' opriont the reasonableness and competitiveness of one or more alternative proposa1(s) may be evaluated. 6.2.6 Number and MaterisJity of Exceptions (50 points) The number, nature and materiality of exceptions to the model Collection Agreetnent (Attachment 2) will be taken into account in evaluating proposals. 6.2.7 Environmental Enhancements (50 points) Proposals that include Environmental Enhancements including, but not limited to those specified in Section 3.16.3 of this RFP, may be eligible to receive additional evaluation points. Proposed Environmental Enhancements that address the following will be eligible to receive points: 1. Mitigating Environmental Impacts. Reducing or minimizing the negative environmental impacts associated with providing collection services (e.g., air and water impacts, depletion of natural resources). 2. Recycled Materials. Ensuring the highest and best use of recycled materials and the highest feasible quantity of recycled content is achieved." Comment #15 Page 4 - "How the Proposal was Scored" section The Grand Jury report states: 'Each evaluation criterion was divided into two parts: a "competitive" part and a "reasoflfJbleness" part. In determining the "reasonableness" points of a proposer's cost proposal, equipment selection, labor, and operating (Jj'J'IImjJtions were to be "considered against industry standards" and agailJst other proposals. The point allocation prot'CSs was descn'bed by Grand Jury witnesses as "highlY theoretical and subjective," with a potential for a limitless amount of"theoretical points" being combined with "actual competitive points II ~y the individual E'la/uation Committee members, up to the maximum score in each Evaluation Criteria category. Neither the individual members of the Evaluation Committee nor the Selection Committee were required to report how many overall points assigned to eal:h criterion were based on "reasonableness" or "competitiveness. "" While the terms "reasonableness" and "competitiveness" were specifically prescribed in five (5) of the twenty-four (24) sub-criteria, it is incorrect to state that 'rp.ach evaluation criteria was divided into two parts: a "competititle" part and a "reasonableness" part. " In addition, it is incorrect to state that the scoring process was ''lJighfy theoretical" or that there was a Upotential ftr a limitless amount of theoretical points being combined with actual competitive points. .. "The five primary criterions contained numerous sub-criteria and points were achieved or deducted based on the company's strengths or weaknesses for each relative to the other proposals. Comment #16 Page 4 - 'How the Proposal was Scored" section The Grand Jury report states: 'The Grand Jury received a paper titled "Solid Waste Manageme11t-A Guidefor Competitive Contracting for CoUection" written by a SBWMA consultant and was told that it was the guideline fOr the RFP. " In 1996, JM Sloan co-authored "Solid Waste Management - A Guide for Competitive Contracting for Collection". The paper wa.s published as a part of a policy series of the Reason Foundation - Privatization Center. While JM Sloan) of Sloan Vazquez, !Le, is a consultant to SB\VMA, Mr. Sloan's consultation was specifically limited to the Facility Operations RFP, and not the Collection SB\VM.A Grand Jury Response_Addendum 2.doc Page 11 of 17