The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.1 SolidWaste&DisposlEval CITY CLERK File # D[ð]w[Q]-~ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 19, 2004 SUBJECT: Establishment of Criteria Weighting Factors For Evaluation of Proposals for Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Report Prepared By: Jason Behrmann, Senior Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: 1) Memorandum from City Manager dated October 11, 2004 RECOMMENDATION:~ Assign a collective weighting factor percentage to each of the four ð evaluation criteria FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The Request for Proposals ("RFP") package for solid waste services requires the winning proposer(s) to reimburse the City for all costs incurred to administer the competitive proposal process, including consulting and legal fees, Staff time, etc. According to the current project schedule, Staff intends to award the new Collection and Disposal Agreements no later than November 16, 2004. It is anticipated that the City would therefore receive the funds by the end of Calendar Year 2004. This project will have no net impact on the General Fund. BACKGROUND: The current Agreement with Waste Management expires on June 30, 2005. On April 6, 2004, the City executed a Consultant Services Agreement with R3 Consulting Group ("R3") to provide assistance on the competitive proposal process for solid waste services. On July 20, 2004, the City Council approved the release of the Request for Proposals for Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Collection, Disposal and Recycling Services. Proposals were due on September 15,2004, and the City received the following proposals for solid waste services: COLLECTION Amador Valley Industries Republic Services, IDc Waste Management, IDc DISPOSAL Republic Services, IDc - Vasco Road Landfill Waste Management, Inc - Altamont Landfill PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS: On July 20, 2004, the City Council elected to implement a "double-blind" process to evaluate proposals received in response to the City's RFP. The double blind process combines raw scores provided by an evaluation team and evaluation criteria weighting or prioritization established by the City Council. The primary advantage of the double-blind evaluation process is that it maintains a high degree of objectivity as the evaluation team members do not know the criteria weighting factors when scoring the proposals, and the Council members do not know the raw scores when assigning the weighting factors. Under this system, no party can claim that the evaluation committee or the Council had the ability to unfairly influence the outcome of the selection process. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: Ric Hutchinson, R3 Consulting Gr-;; ITEM NO. J Wcc.forms/agdastmt.doc \q;P (' The evaluation team, conslstmg of City Staff members Joni Pattillo and Jason Behrmann, and Ric Hutchinson of R3 Consulting Group, will complete their evaluation and assign raw scores to each proposal based on the four evaluation criteria outlined below. 1. Overall responsiveness to the RFP o Exceptions and Alternatives 2. Proposers experience and qualifications o Experience o References o Financial stability 3. Adequacy and completeness of the technical proposal o Collection Services · Transition Plan · Customer Service Plan · Diversion Plan · Education Plan · Processing Plans · Operations Plan · Violation History o Disposal Services · Operations Plan · Capacity Guarantee · Required Expansion · Facility Location · Violation History 4. Proposed Costs The raw scores provided by the evaluation team will be sealed and given to the City Clerk prior to the City Council Meeting. On October 11, 2004, the City Manager distributed the Evaluation Criteria Weighting Worksheets for both Collection and Disposal Services (Attachment 1) to the City Council, in order to provide an opportunity to individually prioritize the evaluation criteria. Each Council member will provide a percentage weight to each of the four evaluation criteria provided on the attached worksheets. The worksheets will be completed, sealed and given to the City Clerk no later than the close of business on Monday, October 18th. The individual Council weightings will then be compiled and displayed during the Council Meeting, providing the Council an opportunity to see the weighting assigned by other Councilmembers. The Council will then be asked to assign, by vote, a collective weighting factor to each of the four criteria. The final weighting factors will be applied to the raw scores after the Council Meeting to determine the weighted scores and proposal rankings. The results of the rankings and Staff recommendations will be presented to the City Council at the November 2, 2004 City Council meeting. ~~ RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council assign a collective weighting factor percentage to each of the four evaluation criteria for the evaluation of proposals for Collection Services and Disposal Services. 3003 J~" City Manager's Office MEMORANDUM DATE: October II, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: 5JR ~ Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager SUB]ECÎ9 EVALUATION PROCESS FOR SOLID WASTE PROPOSALS Introduction The objective of this memorandum is to assist members ofthe City Council in the process of assigning weighting factors to the four criteria that are being used to evaluate the solid waste proposals received on September 15,2004. Please complete the two criteria weightingforms included in Attachment 1 to this memorandum and submit to the City Clerk no later than the close of business on Mondav. October 18th. Staff will prepare a worksheet showing the five individual council weighting factors, and the average weighting factors, for discussion and approval at the October 19th Council Meeting. Background On July 20,2004, the City Council approved the release of the Request for Proposals for Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Collection, Disposal and Recycling Services. Proposals were due on September 15, 2004, and the City received proposals from three companies, including Waste Management, Inc., Republic Services, Inc., and Amador Valley Industries. Three-Step Evaluation Process The proposal evaluation process includes the following three steps: Step 1 - Evaluation Team Performs Due Diligence: In the first step, the evaluation team performs a thorough due diligence process for each proposal received in response to the City's RFP. The evaluation team consists of City Staff members Joni Pattillo and Jason Behrmann, and Ric Hutchison ofR3 Consulting Group. The due diligence process includes the following tasks: · a complete review and analysis of each proposal; · interviews with municipal client references; · site visits to recycling, transfer, compo sting and disposal facilities; I'D'" 1'1 ....0&.4 1./ ATTACHMENT 1 City of Dublin Evaluation of Solid Waste Proposals ~fb{ Criteria Weighting Factors Page 2 of 4 · questions and points of clarification submitted to each proposer; · presentations from, and interviews with, each proposer. The evaluation team members have been performing the Step 1 tasks since the proposals were received on September 15th. Step 2 - Evaluation Team Assigns Raw Scores: In the second step, the evaluation team assigns raw scores to each proposal. The scoring is divided into four categories. The evaluation criteria categories include the following: · Overall responsiveness to the RFP; · Proposers experience and qualifications; · Adequacy and completeness of the technical proposal; · Compensation. The evaluation team is scheduled to assign raw scores to each proposal on October 19, 2004 and deliver the results to the City Clerk. Step 3 - City Council Assigns Criteria Weighting Factors to Determine Proposal Rankings: In the third step, the City Council assigns weighting factors to each ofthe four evaluation criteria categories. The final weighting factors from the City Council will be combined with the raw scores from the evaluation team to establish the final proposal rankings. Figure I below provides a conceptual view of the three-step evaluation process to establish the final proposal rankings. FiQure 1 Three-Step Evaluation Process - Proposal Rankings Evaluation Criteria The City asked proposers to submit separate proposals for collection services and disposal services. Accordingly, the evaluation team members will assign raw scores separately to the proposals received for collection and disposal. Council members are therefore asked to assign criteria weighting factors for collection and disposal services by completing the two forms included in Attachment 1 to this memorandum. Staff requests City of Dublin Evaluation of Solid Waste Proposals C· . W . h· ~Øþl.t ntena elg tmg r;ctors Page 3 of 4 that Council members complete the forms and submit to the City Clerk no later than the close of business on Monday, October 18,2004. The individual weighting factors for each Council member, as well as the average weighting factors, will be presented at the Council meeting on October 19,2004. The Council will then discuss and vote to approve the final criteria weighting factors. The following provides a discussion of each of the four evaluation criteria categories: Criterion #1: Overall Responsiveness to the RFP: This criterion is a measure of each proposers overall responsiveness to the proposal format and programmatic requirements as specified in the RFP document, including the following factors: · Are the required proposal documents complete, accurate, properly labeled and in the correct sequence? The required proposal documents include Cover Letter, Bid Bond, Proposal Submittal Fee, Table of Contents, Executive Summary, Forms, Signed Addenda, Qualifications, Labor Agreements, Technical Proposals, Violations History and Appendices. · Did the proposer provide all of the required information, including cost forms, company information and history, staff resumes, etc., to allow the evaluation team to completely and accurately complete the evaluation? · Did the proposer take any exceptions to the fundamental concepts of the Collection Services Agreement or the Disposal Services Agreement? If so, to what extent do the exceptions conflict with the overall goals, needs and special requirements of the City and its residents? Criterion #2: Proposers Experience and Qualifications: This criterion is a measure of each proposers experience and qualifications to perform the required services as specified in the RFP document, including the following factors: · How long has the company been in business, and has the company successfully performed similar services for other municipalities? · Are the management and staff positions identified by the hauler to serve the City of Dublin sufficiently qualified to provide the required services? · Is the company's financial condition adequate to guarantee provision of the requested services? · Has the company successfully implemented similar residential, commercial and multi-family diversion programs as those requested by the City of Dublin? · Has the company been successful in achieving compliance with the diversion mandates of AB 939 in other communities that it serves? · Has the company been cooperative with City staff and residents in the resolution of contractual or financial issues or disagreements in other communities that it serves? · Has the company successfully implemented public education and outreach programs to residents, businesses and schools? · Is the company involved in community events and civic causes? · Does the company submit timely and accurate franchise fee payments, quarterly and annual reports, etc., in other communities that it serves? · How successful are the Customer Service and Billing services performed by the company in other communities that it serves? City of Dublin Evaluation of Solid Waste Proposals C· . W . h . LI·.q," ntena elg tmg Factors Page 4 of 4 · Is the company responsive to customer complaints for missed service, cart exchanges, billing discrepancies, etc? · Has the company successfully implemented a service transition from another hauling company? Criterion #3: Adequacv and Completeness of the Technical Provosal · Does the proposal adequately address and describe the collection, disposal and diversion programs to be implemented in the City of Dublin? · Does the Transition Plan sufficiently describe the transition process that win ensure minimum customer disruption and inconvenience? · Does the Public Education Plan sufficiently describe the elements ofthe public education and outreach program that meets the needs of the residents and businesses ofthe City of Dublin during and after transition? · Does the Public Education Plan address specific program elements, including school programs, community events, etc? · Is the number of employees and corresponding job descriptions in the Public Education Plan adequate for the promotion and maintenance of the recyclable and organic materials collection programs? · Does the Collection Operations Plan adequately address vehicle inventory, maintenance, backup, and replacement to meet the needs of the City of Dublin? · Is the routing information and method of collection accurate and complete? · Is the Diversion Plan sufficient to meet the diversion requirements specified in the contract? · Is the Disposal Operating Plan sufficient to meet the disposal requirements specified in the contract? · Is the violations history complete and accurate? Are the nature of the violations such that the City may be exposed to an unacceptable level of risk by executing a contract with the company? Criterion #4: Comvensation What is the total compensation proposed for the residential and commercial solid waste collection, recycling and disposal programs specified in the RFP? Questions Please complete the criteria weighting forms included in Attachment 1. If you have any questions or comments regarding this memorandum, please feel free to contact Jason Behnnann by phone at 833-6650, or by email at i ason.behrmann@ci.dublin.ca.us. cc: Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager Jason Behrmann, Senior Administrative Analyst ï7~~ City of Dublin Collection Services RFP Evaluation Criteria Weighting Worksheet Criterion No. 1 .. Overall ResDonsiveness to the RFP Order of Proposal Content Completeness of Proposal Adequacy of Proposal Content Program Exceptions Contractual Exceptions Viable Alternatives Enter Weighting Factor for Collection Criterion No. 1 Criterion No.2.. rODosera EXDerience & Qualifications Organizational Structure and Management Key Staff Qualifications Similar Services Public Education Experience Diversion Experience Transition Experience Customer Service Experience References Financial Stability Criterion No.3.. Technical ProDosal - Collection Collection Methods AFV Plan Transition Plan Customer Service Plan Diversion Plan Education Plan Processing Plans Operations Plan Violations History Criterion No.4.. Comoensatlon Collection Compensation Discount Enter Wei hting Factor for Collection Criterion No.4 to Ob l4 Criterion No. 1 ~ OVerall ResDonslveness to the RFP Order of Proposal Content Completeness of Proposal Adequacy of Proposal Content Program Exceptions Contractual Exceptions Viable Alternatives Factor for Disposal Criterion No. 1 Criterion NO.2 - ProDosera EXDerlence & Qualifications Organizational Structure and Management Key Staff Qualifications Similar Services References Financial Stability Enter Weighting Factor for Disposal Criterion No.2 Criterion No. 3 ~ Technical ProDosal - DisDosal Disposal Services Operations Plan Capacity Guarantee Required Expansion Facility Location Violations History Enter Weighting Factor for Disposal Criterion No.3 Criterion NO.4 - Rates Disposal Rates Discount Enter Weighting Factor for Disposal Criterion No.4 S 05al Criteria (Must equal 100%)