Laserfiche WebLink
In Section 2.03 (page 5), Member DeBenedet noted an incorrect e-mail address; <br /> duly noted by Mr. Pratt for correction. <br /> Reverting to the weight issue (Section 5.02), Member DeBenedet advised that his <br /> research through MnDOT earlier today had not been successful in determining <br /> type of axle and weight. However, Member DeBenedet opined that 40,000 <br /> pounds was a heavy axle load, if intended for two (2) axle trucks, and such a load <br /> would create much wear and tear on roads, especially in the spring; suggesting <br /> that 7 tons per axle, with a maximum load of 9 tons/axle was typical. <br /> Regarding Section 5.03 (page 14)regarding hours of collection, at the request of <br /> Member DeBenedet, Mr. Pratt advised that this was previous RFP language. <br /> Member DeBenedet suggested that illegal use of controlled substances should be <br /> defined, and include synthetic drugs as well, allowing that no one impaired should <br /> be operating the vehicles. <br /> Regarding the evaluation criteria and weighting, Member DeBenedet questioned <br /> where in the document it said how and when a vendor passed/failed and didn't <br /> make the qualifications and wouldn't be given further consideration. <br /> Mr. Pratt responded that Section 10.07 (page 47) addressed the proposal content <br /> and Section 10.08 the evaluation criteria itself, noting that the word "must" <br /> should be eliminated from language in Section 10.07. In an effort to avoid any <br /> potential legal action, Member DeBenedet suggested that additional language be <br /> included as a failsafe for those vendors submitting incomplete proposals and/or <br /> not meeting base specifications, and that they would not be considered at all if not <br /> doing so. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding a vendor that may go bankrupt or ceased serving the <br /> community for any amount of time during the contract; and how that would be <br /> addressed. Mr. Pratt responded that any vendors would be required to file a <br /> performance bond with the City. However, Member DeBenedet opined that the <br /> language needed to be very clear if the City found itself in a position dealing with <br /> a contractor in default. Mr. Schwartz noted that there was an exception in the <br /> proposal if a vendor failed to perform its duties on a regular basis. Mr. Pratt noted <br /> that there are service standards and liquidated damage provisions, in addition to <br /> the performance bond. <br /> Member DeBenedet questioned if the language was sufficient for the City to be <br /> able to terminate the contract with that vendor and hire another vendor. Member <br /> DeBenedet suggested language such as "the vendor had five (5) business days to <br /> resume their service schedule or the City would terminate their contract. While <br /> recognizing that any such action took time as it processes through the City <br /> Council, Member DeBenedet opined that he didn't want to set the City up for not <br /> being able to enter into another contract with a different vendor due to failure on <br /> the original vendor's part to perform their duties on schedule. <br /> Page 8 of 15 <br />