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

Browse Search

7A Page 53 ATTACHMENT 2 Services RFP. While Mr. Sloan supports the general principles set forth in the paper, he did not submit the paper to the SBWMA, nor was he asked to provide input to the development of the Collection RFP. To emphasize, the paper was neither offered by SBWMA consultants, nor used by the SBWMA as the guideline for the RFP. Comment #17 Page 5 - "How the Proposal was Scored" section The Grand Jury report states: {On .August 28J 2008, Norcal was chosen by the SB'WMA to be awarded the Collection Sef7Jices Contract for the tenjlear periodjroftJ 2011 to 2021." The SBWMA Board of Directors did pass a motion to approve the Selection Committee recommendation to select Norcal as the future collection services provider. The Board recommended presenting this selection to the individual governing bodies of the respective Member Agencies for consideration of awarding a contract. Only the governing bodies of the Member Agencies can award a Collection Services franchise within their jurisdiction. Comment #18 Page 5 - "Cost Evaluation" section The Grand Jury report states: 'The SBWMA and consultants entered the cost information provided by each of the four proposers into (J Comprehensive Cost Proposal Summary. That summary was used to compare and evaluate their "competitiveness." The final proposed cosfs for seniting the entire SBWMAjurisdiction are summarized in item four ofT able 1. " 'Ibe fIrst sentence is correct, while the second and third are not. The Cost Proposal Summary was used as a tool to evaluate the cost proposals with respect to all three Cost Proposal sub-criteria, including Reasonableness of Cost Proposals, Competitiveness of Cost Proposals, and Value to Member Agencies. At no point was the summary solely used, as all of the Evaluation Team members thoroughly vetted all aspects of all cost forms submitted by the proposers. The third sentence is incorrect since "Table 1)) in the report reflects scores achieved and does not provide information on cost (~'lhe final proposed costs for Serviti1zg the entire SBW.MAjurisdiction'j. What is also important to note is that Allied was awarded the most points for competitiveness of its cost proposal since the company submitted the lowest cost proposal. Comment #19 Page 5 - ('Cost Evaluation" section The Grand Jury report states: {The SBWMA was informed by Allied that its costs were lower because, as a large t:ompa'!y, it had the potentia! advantage of hedgingfuel coJtJ'. " At no time during the proposals evaluation process did Allied disclose any information on its local or corporate fuel purchasing practices that suggested that it had a potential advantage of hedging fuel costs. SBW!v1A Grand Jury Response_Addendum 2.doc Page 12 of 17