Laserfiche WebLink
Discussion ensued staff costs to provide that service versus contractual costs; <br /> need for clarification on costs for carts located on paths and/or contractors picking <br /> them up. <br /> Member Heimerl suggested the potential for changes in pick-up based on seasonal <br /> collection. <br /> Mr. Johnson clarified that the proposals for park pick-up were based on a"per <br /> pull"basis and seasonal use depending on the particular park, and reviewed <br /> current practice versus potential future practice. Mr. Johnson advised that staff <br /> would work with vendors to pull and set-out carts seasonally, and target those <br /> higher use areas during winter months. <br /> Mr. Johnson concluded by reviewing proposal scoring and averaged scores for 3 <br /> and 5 year contracts, averaging them within base collections. Using that as a base <br /> without the park collection component, Mr. Johnson noted the ranking for <br /> proposers as follows: Proposer 1, 3, 2 and 4 respectively. For the base collection <br /> with the park collection component, Mr. Johnson ranked the proposals as follows: <br /> Proposer 3, 2, 1 and 4. <br /> Mr. Culver briefly reviewed the best value scoring process and criteria used when <br /> using the highest rankings based on average fees using the base collection. Using <br /> that method, Mr. Culver noted Proposer 3 ranked as the highest scoring contractor <br /> by including the park component to the base collection proposal; but without the <br /> parks component, Mr. Culver noted Proposer 1 was the highest scoring contractor. <br /> Mr. Culver noted using the best value criteria didn't preclude picking outside of <br /> the cost perspective, but using the best cost as well as knowing Proposers 1 and 3 <br /> are both giving good value, as well as Proposer 2 if the park component was <br /> deleted. <br /> Chair Cihacek noted that, based on the estimated 1,600 carts, rankings could <br /> change if not addressed prior to making a recommendation. <br /> Mr. Culver advised that consideration would be wrapped into staff s <br /> recommendation. When scoring proposals form the best value perspective and <br /> prices were still sealed, Mr. Culver noted some details came out when reviewing <br /> scoring sheets. However, Mr. Culver spoke in support of the value perspective <br /> scoring before considering the prices, with the result being that only a bi-weekly <br /> multi-unit service impacted the costs, or bi-weekly park service. Mr. Culver <br /> noted an argument could be made that such a proposal didn't meet RFP criteria. <br /> Member Seigler opined it was necessary to determine if it was better for the city <br /> to look into a three year contract and negotiate or whether to consider the five <br /> year contract at a higher score. <br /> Page 12 of 19 <br />