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

Browse Search

7A Page 58 ATTACHMENT 2 Comment #28 Page 13 - (~BWMA j- Management Condud" section The Grand Jury report states: 'With this emai4 the copy of a 1l8wspaper article about Allied (see Attachment 2) was also sent to the proposers. The newspaper arlicle contained controversial information about Allied, fJJ admiJled to by staJ! in a SBWMA meeting on.Augmt 28,2008. Allied's itrJJ!jcr attempted 10 elicit an apologyfrom the executive at a JB Wi\:fA Board meeting, bllt the apoiogy was denied on the grounds that it was nof Iegal!J necessary. " This matter has been legally settled with Allied) pursuant to a confidential written settlement that resolves use of plant material delivered to Newby Island by the SBW11A. Comment #29 Page 14 - (~BMWMA Flires External Consultant" section 1be Grand Jury report states: 'The consuitant's analYsis was based primarilY on interoiews with the committee members, not on written documents. He found that the RFP evaluators submitted combined J'cores, which did not distinguish the point a/location between what were "competitivenes.r" points and what were 'reasonableness' points in the RFP scoring process. J1 This statement is incorrect with regards to the Collection Services RFP. TIle SB~'MA did not hire an external consultant. The City of San Mateo retained an independent consultant to review the Collection Services RFP evaluations of the proposals to ensure they were done appropriately. The independent consultanes ftndings concurred with the recommendation for the future service provider and stated that the evaluations were appropriately executed and fair. The report specifically stated the following: . "The selection process provided multiple opportunities for each of the Proposers to provide details on their proposal. . The Evaluation Committee nlembers rated the proposals independently) not in a group setting. . The Evaluation Committee did not come to agreement before the scores were tallied. . When the scores were compared) each of the evaluators had ranked each of the Proposers in the same order. . The Cost Proposals were fairly evaluated. The evaluation of cost not only evaluated the base fcc, but also the reasonableness of the amount. . The process for the evaluation of the proposals was fair. . The evaluation of the proposals was fair." As it relates to the Facility Operations RFP, this statement is also factually incorrect. No consultant interviewed the evaluators. The scoring of the proposals did, in fact, separately account for reasonableness and competitiveness. SBWMA. Grand Jury Response_Addendum 2.doc Page 17 of 17