My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0212.006 2010-2012
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2010-2012
>
COM 0212.006 2010-2012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/3/2011 2:14:06 PM
Creation date
10/21/2011 8:12:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2010-2012
Communication
0212
Point
006
Author
Pete Hoffmann, Council Member
Communications - Referred To
COUNCIL
Comments
Council: Close file - 11/02/11
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 11/02/2011 2010-2012
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2010-2012\Council
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
b) DEM should arrive at an in -house economical /feasible figure per ton <br />for this service. DEM does make an estimate but relies on the bidding <br />or procurement process to determine the market conditions and obtain <br />the most fair and competitive pricing for services. <br />c) DEM and the Legislative Auditor must work on an agreement <br />regarding verification measures. DEM welcomes working with the <br />Legislative Auditor as stated in response to question No. 9. <br />d) Environmental Management Commission should be provided the <br />opportunity to review the resolution before submission to Council. <br />DEM agrees. <br />e) The RFP should stipulate (or make it clear) that more than one <br />contract /zone is possible. DEM agrees. After further review, more than <br />2 contracts /zones are possible. <br />f) DEM might consider offering incentives to defray investment costs in <br />order to generate the potential for smaller bidder in the RFP process. <br />DEM will review with Finance and Purchasing. <br />g) Examine if we should have one cost for hauling per ton. DEM is <br />reviewing as stated in response to question No. 7. <br />h) Examine if we should have only two diversion incentives. <br />i) Examine if we should have one RFP that includes both hauling and <br />diversion. DEM is reviewing as stated in response to question No. 10. <br />It is recommended that an RFP be prepared rather than an IFB. An RFP <br />is used when there are certain mandatory outcomes, requirements and <br />restrictions but where the methodology, technology, or processes <br />employed to achieve those mandates could vary and where qualitative <br />and subjective criteria may be just as relevant and important in deciding <br />the best offer as is cost. With an IFB, however, everything is essentially <br />defined and mandated. There is no room for deviation in process or <br />method... ie: you want a building of xx dimensions, with a concrete <br />foundation of y material and x dimension, with wall heights of n feet , <br />and so on. Because the product or outcome is very specifically defined, <br />the only relevant factor in comparing offers is price. <br />J) <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.