Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pratt noted the Termination Clause (Section 9.08); with Member DeBenedet <br /> suggested that language in that section also be clearer; as well as other sections <br /> dealing with the contractor making promises that they'd be back in business, but <br /> continued being delayed. Member DeBenedet cautioned that the City needed to <br /> be able to cancel that contract; and suggested City Attorney review and <br /> strengthening that language. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that staff could have additional conversations with the City <br /> Attorney related to performance and termination; with Member DeBenedet <br /> encouraging those discussions based on the City Attorney's access to case law <br /> and other expertise. <br /> Member DeBenedet opined that he still had a deep issue with single sort, and <br /> evaluation requirements for the vendor to prove where the material is hauled to <br /> and how it was recycled, opining that this was absolutely critical for him. <br /> Mr. Pratt reviewed the end-market verification requirements in the criteria, noting <br /> that in the past, vendors had stated that the information was proprietary <br /> information. However, Mr. Pratt advised that the detailed would be spelled out <br /> better providing how and who could access that information (e.g. City staff and/or <br /> the public) and which data would remain proprietary between only the vendor and <br /> the City. Mr. Pratt reviewed how the City would take possession of the data <br /> internally once a contract was signed; and which information could become <br /> public, and what information was used by staff and/or a review committee for <br /> monitoring and verification that contract terms were being followed. Mr. Pratt <br /> noted that the goal was to be able to verify end-market data. <br /> Member DeBenedet, while recognizing the need for proprietary information, also <br /> noted the City's need to inform and assure its residents that the materials they <br /> recycled would be recycled. Member DeBenedet suggested language be taken a <br /> step further, and that whether or not the vendor considered the information <br /> proprietary, the City would not consider it as such, and could invalidate their <br /> proposal accordingly. <br /> Mr. Schwartz questioned if an annual requirement for providing that information <br /> was actually even proprietary in nature, Mr. Pratt suggested that it be made an <br /> annual requirement in the RFP criteria. Mr. Pratt noted that, with City's current <br /> vendor, staff had been able to profile end-market information for its residents in <br /> the City's newsletter. <br /> Member DeBenedet concurred that things had been more transparent recently; <br /> and that he would not want to see that change or digress in any way. <br /> Vice Chair Stenlund, in the evaluation criteria and weighting list (pages 47-48), <br /> suggested that the "other" category value could include whether a Roseville <br /> Page 9 of 15 <br />