Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 54 <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT 2 <br /> <br />Comment #20 <br />Page 5 - uCOJ" Evaluation" section <br />The Grand Jury report states: <br /> <br />('Also, due to Allied's size, the compa1!J tbat supplies new bins had agreed to rollout the bins to residents <br />free oj charge. H <br /> <br />This statement is incorrect. During the discovery question and answer process in evaluating <br />proposals, Allied was asked by the SBWiv1A about where the cost to assemble and distribute bins <br />was located in the cost forms submitted, and the company responded by stating that: "The assemblY <br />and delivery cost is included in o/Ir base cost per cO/llmner, located on Form #4." (Allied response #34, letter <br />dated 04/15/08). <br /> <br />Comment #21 <br />Page 7 - ttp.nvironmental Enhancements & Other Considerations" section <br />Footnote number 4 states: <br /> <br />(dNo mention was made of an opt-in proprietary program called &rycfebank, implemented successfu~1y in <br />Delaware and Philadelphia and awarded by the United Nations, that would supplY &rydebank's dollars to <br />incent household recycling,- hltp:/ / www.huliq.com/l / 80048?un-program-spotlights-rerycie-bank" <br /> <br />The information submitted by Allied pertaining to its RecycleBank program was not complian t with <br />the RFP. Awarding or subtracting points for an alternative program that was not submitted in <br />compliance with the RFP requirements would ha.ve compromised the fundamental due diligence of <br />ensuring a fairly managed competitive procurement. <br /> <br />Comment #22 <br />Page 7 - t:JBWMA ~ Due Diligence Process" section <br />The Grand Jury report states: <br /> <br />(The Grand Jury asked the SBWL\1A Board members who were on the Selection Committee if they were <br />aware ofNorcats previous, weli-publicized history in the City of San Jose (San Jose) and San Bernardino <br />Coun!y. SBMW A reported that Norcal's problematic history was discussed. I-lowever, many of the <br />SBWMA Board members mentioned they had no knowledge of these discussions. During a Menlo Park <br />City Council meeting, the SBWMA consultant, who was ta..rked to verify the competitors' references, public!J <br />testified that he phoned San Jose to confirm Norcals recommendations, but he ne~'tr followed-rp. Dun1{g <br />interviews, the Grand Jury learned that the SB WMA conmltant worked in a co11S111ting.ftrm that helped <br />mate the RFP fOr waste management co/iection services in 2000 for San Jose and their subsequent RFPs <br />after Norcal's problems were revealed. This cOfJSultant and his partner were on the SB Wl\1A E1Jaiuanon <br />Committee. " <br /> <br />All proposers were required to submit detailed information about contract issues and litigation in <br />their proposals, as well as additional information requested during the evaluation process. This <br />included contract issues and litigation related to Norcal's contracts in San Jose and San Bernardino <br />County. All of this information was taken into careful consideration during the evaluation and <br />selection process. <br /> <br />Two members of the Evaluation Team had firsthand knowledge of N oreal's and Green \Vaste <br />Recovery's (one of the partners in BES1) operational performance and contract compliance in the <br />City of San Jose. This was shared and discussed, and further taken into consideration during the <br />evaluation and selection process. <br /> <br />SBW.MA Grand Jury Response_Addendum 2.doc <br /> <br />Page 13 of 17 <br />