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

Browse Search

7A Page 55 ATTACHMENT 2 In fact, both principals of R3 consulting (Ric Hutchinson and Richard Tagore-Irwin) were key members on the primary consultant teams that worked on San Jose's last two RFPs for collection services in 2000 and 2006. The scope of their prior work for San Jose included RFP development, evaluation of proposals, facilitation of proposals scoring, and final contract negotiation and program implementation. This experience in San Joe was one of the key attributes that set the R3 consultant team apart from the others that responded to the SBWMA's competitive procurement request for qualifications for RFP consultant serd.ces. Upon release of the recommendation to select N oreal as the next service provider, one of the proposing companies asserted that: "Over the course of the contract [between N oreal and San Jose] these problems exacerbated to a level that caused the City of San Jose to not offer an automatic extension of the contract to Norcal and put there [their - San Jose] collection and recycling services out to bid.)) To which, the SBWlv1:A responded with the following: "This assertion is not true given the following information: . Norcal held separate contracts with the City of San Jose for collection of recycling and garbage, and collection of yard trimmings and street sweeping. ~ Norcal did in fact receive an automatic extension offer for yard trimmings/street sweeping on December 21, 2005 (refer to Exhibit D -letter from San Jose City Manager to Norcal). . Norcal did not receive an automatic extension offer for recycling and garbage collection service on December 21, 2005, due to Section 2.02 of the collection agreement that conditioned an automatic extension based upon meeting certain diversion requirements (i.e., processing of collected recyclables at the materials recovery facility (MRF) (refer to Exhibit E -letter from San Jose City Manager). )- Lastly, a letter from San Jose staff was issued to N oreal on October 17 I 2005 (refer to Exhibit F) which invited Norcal to make a written proposal to the City of San Jose for consideration regarding the potential extension of the agreement for recycling and garbage collection and conveying that the City's rationale for not providing an extension offer was due to issues related to not meeting diversion requirements at the processing facility (owned and operated by California Waste Solutions),. . ." Comment #23 Page 7 - t~BW'MA 1 Due Diligence Process" section 'Ibe Grand Jury report states: 'The 2004-2005 Janta Clara County Civil Grand Jury Rtporl stated, That tbe [San Jose] lJ1qyor's June 26, 2000 recommendation of..Norcal to tbe C.ouncil describes Norcal's history and serious legal problems. The Iristory also discusses Sa11 Bemardil10 County's lawsuit against Norcal alleging bn'bery,.fraud, and IIn)iISt enn'chment. ..:4.n f8-monlh jail sentmee for a NOfraJ employee, who admitted taking bribes and a $6.5 million settkm81lt p~mcnt by Norcal 10 San Bemardino COlmty were also discussed' The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury could not cktennine if the 5 ejection Committee were aware 0/ these issues or explored them or other issues in a1!Y depth. rurther, there is no evidence that the SBWMA did a diligent search of the other proposer..r that might have influenced the selection. " Regarding the last sentence, the SB\VMA's outside counsel performed a thorough litigation review and the results of this review and follow-up research was shared with the Selection Committee. This information was provided to the Grand Jury. SBWtvlA Grand Jury Response_Addendum 2.doc Page 14 of 17