2010-09-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Management. Some companies submitted more than one proposal. The additional proposals reflected variations on the company's base proposal, or an alternative method of service delivery. One company offered an alternate proposal for afive-year contract. The City Manager determined that afive-year contract was outside the scope of the RFP and thus the five-year proposal could not be considered. Executive Assistant Margaret Driscoll administered the proposal process, and she received the scores from reviewers and references and compiled the score sheet. Ms. Driscoll reviewed each proposal for completeness and assigned a score for that section of the formula. Each proposer submitted a list of references. Those references were asked to complete a survey through an outside provider in which the references assigned numerical scores to questions regarding the proposer's ability to provide service (e.g. ability to collect cleanly and quietly, quality of customer relations, etc.). RW Beck staff did a financial analysis of each proposal and determined the net cost to the city for each proposal. Ms. Driscoll used this analysis to assign a score to each proposal for that section of the formula. The financial analysis was also provided to the review panel for its review. Because the proposal from Eureka Recycling and the alternate proposals from Waste Management contained revenue sharing components, RW Beck calculated revenue returned to the City based on three scenarios: commodity prices at the five-year high, at the five-year average and at the five-year low. Ms. Driscoll used the average figure for her assessment. The City assembled an assessment panel to review each proposal independently and assign numerical scores for the Community Values and Added Value sections of the formula. Those scores were independently submitted to Ms. Driscoll. The panel consisted of: Robert Craggs, Vice President of RW Beck; Jim DeBenedet, Chair, PWET Commission; Chris Miller, Finance Director; Tim Pratt, Recycling Coordinator; and Duane Schwartz, Public Works Director. In addition the panel interviewed proposers to clarify the proposals and to gain additional information -information that would allow panel members to make an assessment of the proposer's ability to provide recycling service for the City of Roseville. All scores were submitted to Ms. Driscoll who compiled the results found in Attachment B. The final scores (on a 100 point scale) are as follows: Proposer Score Eureka Recycling 75.26 Allied Waste Proposal 1 58.38 Allied Waste Proposal 2 56.40 Tennis S~~Zitation Proposal 2 52.33 Tennis Sanitation Proposal 1 37.54 The results were presented to the review panel. Members unanimously agreed to recommend the City award the recycling services contract to Eureka Recycling. Committee members found the Eureka Recycling proposal adds value to the City above and beyond what was offered by other proposers by: Collecting as many types, or more types, of material than the other proposers as a base and will expand collections to include pizza boxes Having the lowest residual rate at their materials recovery facility (MRF) Page 2 of 3