My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/24/2024
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2020's
>
2024
>
04/24/2024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2024 12:59:46 PM
Creation date
7/9/2024 12:55:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/24/2024
Meeting Body
Solid Waste Disposal Board
Subject
SWDD Special Call Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Board of Commissioners SWDD Meeting Minutes - Final April 24, 2024 <br />the State and nationally. She noted that this method of negotiation was considered a <br />recommended best practice because it would enable the County to negotiate <br />concurrently with both firms and ultimately arrive at the best product or service. She <br />referred to the addendum and stated in terms of the schedule where it said timeline, <br />one of the entries stated, "deadline for Best and Final Offer if requested". County <br />Attorney DeBraal stated he had received confirmation from the consultant that this <br />method of negotiation has been done frequently in other areas, it was something the <br />haulers expected and were used to, and there had been no challenges to the bid in any <br />other Florida area with this type of process. A discussion followed with <br />Commissioner Loar stating his concern with the method of negotiation for the 'Best <br />and Final Offer" for a 10 -year Franchise Agreement and only negotiating with the top <br />two firms. <br />Ms. Gray told of Sarasota County who recently used this method of negotiation and <br />reiterated it was a common tool utilized to get the best and final price. She stated the <br />RFP process was not just about price, but their qualifications. A discussion followed <br />among the Board regarding the RFP process and Chairman Adams gave a synopsis <br />of the discussions that had taken place and emphasized the method of negotiation was <br />in place to get the best price for the residents. Attorney DeBraal mentioned the <br />Selection Committee chose the proposal for a developed response by the bidders to <br />see how many trucks or what type of equipment would the vendor use, instead of just <br />a price. <br />Mr. Mehta told how the Selection Committee arrived at their decision for the final <br />ranking of firms. He stated there was great engagement between the Selection <br />Committee and the vendors. They asked great questions and the Selection Committee <br />provided responses, and in the process, they identified there was a schedule included <br />which discussed the 'Best and Final Offer"; there was an opportunity for the vendors <br />to ask additional questions. He was confident in the RFP process that was followed <br />and stated that it was done fairly and transparently. Mr. Mehta, in response to a <br />question by Commissioner Earman, stated the vendors were provided a sample <br />agreement which included any modifications made during the process. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Loar, seconded by Chairman Adams, to <br />accept the final ranking of firms, as developed by the Selection Review <br />Committee. The motion carried by the following vote: <br />Aye: 5 - Chairman Adams, Vice Chairman Flescher, Commissioner Earman, Commissioner <br />Moss, and Commissioner Loar <br />Mr. Mehta referred to the total annual price comparisons for residential, commercial, <br />and supplemental services in his PowerPoint presentation and stated the top two firms <br />were FCC and WM. He mentioned the only enhancement included in the RFP was a <br />change to bulk pickup. He referred to Options 3 (Subscription Service) and 4 <br />(Universal Service) with carted yard waste and opined it would end up costing less <br />Indian River County Florida Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.