06/18/2024 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of County Commissioners Meeting Minutes - Final June 18, 2024 Approve a seven-month renewal at the actual spot price on the day approved by the SWDD Board. Staff recommends Option #1 and requests the SWDD Board to approve the Amended Transaction Confirmation #4 with Tiger, Inc. for the Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas, and authorize the Chairman to sign the necessary documents to effectuate the approval. Attachments: Staff Report Amended Renewal #4 A motion was made by Commissioner Earman, seconded by Vice Chairman Flescher, to approve Option #1 of staffs recommendation. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Chairman Adams, Vice Chairman Flescher, Commissioner Earman, Commissioner Moss, and Commissioner Loar 15.6.3 24-0498 Appeal of Denial of Protests Relating to RFP 2024020 Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Board separately hear the appeals of FCC and Coastal, and either uphold or deny the protest. Should the Board uphold either protest, Staff requests the Board provide direction on next steps in the award and negotiation process. Attachments: Staff Report Response to FCC Protest Response to Coastal Appeal and Protest Purchasing Manager Jennifer Hyde began her slide presentation to the Board with a recap of the timeline which led to the Solid Waste Disposal District's (SWDD) decision to award the solid waste collection services contract to Waste Management (WM) on May 21, 2024. Following the decision, protests were filed by two of the bidders, FCC Environmental (FCC) and Coastal Waste & Recycling of Florida (Coastal), regarding the procedure followed during the RFP (Request for Proposal) and BAFO (Best and Final Offer) negotiations. Ms. Hyde's presentation continued by enumerating the vendors' assertions and countering with staffs response in denial of the protest. Ms. Hyde requested the Board hear the appeals to the protests and either uphold or deny the decision. Vice President of Business Development for FCC Charles Merkley appeared before the Board to highlight information he described as unfair and flawed. His protest challenged the basis the review panel used to re -rank the firms, the lack of negotiation during the BAFO period, omission of capabilities consideration, and the methodology WM used to drop their costs by 25 to 50 percent off of their supposedly best offer. He suggested either starting the RFP process over, or re-entering negotiations with the top two vendors as the manner in which the BAFO had been executed unfairly and changed the RFP into a request to bid. Indian River County Florida Page 15