Memo to File
[Pages:1]
|07612 |Waste Pumping Services |Corinna Cooper (Consultant) |
|Contract Type: New Rebid Replacement WSCA Enterprise General Use |
|Restricted to:_____________ |
|Contract Duration: Initial Term: _2_ years months Maximum life: _6__ Years & Date: 1/8/2019 |
|Estimated Term Worth: $800,000.00 Estimated Annual Worth: $400,000.00 |
|Number of: Bidders notified: 437 MWBE’s notified: 26 Bids received: 5 Bids Rejected: 0 |
| WEBS was used to notify bidders |
|List the WEBS (not PCMS) commodity Codes were used? 913-45, 913-60, and 968-78 |
|% DVA: ______ MWBE Goal: ______ % MWBE Award: WBE% _____ MBE%_____ |
| |
|Self Identified WBE% ______ Self Identified MBE% ______ |
|Executive Summary: |This is a rebid of Contract 05406. Contract 05406 was set to expire on 8/6/2012, however, due to lack of stakeholder input the |
| |Contract was extended to 12/31/2012. |
| |There was still a need for the Contract, so the Contract was rebid under Contract #07612. Corinna Cooper, Contracts Consultant was |
| |tasked with completing the rebid due to workload issues with other buyers. |
|Bid Development |
|Stakeholder work |The Contracts Consultant contacted the top users of the Contract; Port of Seattle (Port), the Washington Department of Transportation|
| |(WSDOT), and the Department of Corrections (DOC). All of the Customers were interested in providing input however, only WSDOT |
| |attended a meeting and was responsive to the Contracts Consultants inquiries. The other stakeholders offered no input other then they|
| |liked the Contract. |
| |The Contracts Consultant spoke with each of the vendors on Contract, NW Cascade and Stangland, and both of them liked the way the |
| |Contract was working and offered no additional input into the rebid. |
|Market Research: |Additional market research was conducted to see how many other vendors could do the work. The Contracts Consultant concluded that at |
| |least 7 vendors could provide Waste Pumping Services for the State. |
|EPP Strategy: |This is a service based Contract, so there are not many areas for EPP. However, vendors are required to comply with all rules |
|(See EPP Guidance) |surrounding the disposal and handling of “waste” materials. |
| | |
|Supplier Diversity Strategy: |The Contract is awarded by County. This allows multiple vendors including small business the opportunity to bid on the Contract. |
|(See OSP Supplier Diversity Plan)| |
|Best Value Strategy: |The Contract is awarded by cost and non-cost factors. This allows vendors to be qualified not only on their cost proposal but on |
| |their answers to management, personnel and fleet questions. |
| |The Best Value Calculator was not used for this procurement. |
|Bid Development: |The goal of the solicitation was to have vendors awarded for each County within WA. |
| Peer Review |Connie Stacy (CS3) and LeAnna Sandy (CS1) both provided a peer review and recommended its release. The Contract value is under the |
| |Contracts Consultant’s signature authority so additional approval was not required. |
| Management Fee? |There are no Management Fees added to this Contract but in the future a fee will be added due to Procurement Reform. |
|Bid Process |
|Pre-Bid Conference: |A Pre-bid Conference was held on December 6, 2012. Six (6) Vendors were in attendance along with the Contracts Consultant and the |
|Date: 12/6/2013 |Contracts Administrator, LeAnna Sandy. |
| | |
| |Questions arose regarding the L&I Prevailing Wage designation and mileage charges. An Amendment will need to be completed to address |
| |the issues. |
|Amendment(s): |Amendment No. 1 dated 11/29/2012 clarified the bid due date time as 2:00. |
|Date: 11/29/12, 12/6/12 and | |
|12/12/12 |Amendment No. 2 dated 12/6/2012 extended the bid due date until 12/19/2012. |
|[pic] | |
| |Amendment No. 3 dated 12/12/2013 provided clarification to vendor questions at the pre-bid meeting. |
|Bid Evaluation—Responsiveness |
|Bid Opening: |Five (5) bids were received at bid opening. All bids were on time. Bids were received from the following vendors: |
|Date:12/19/2012 |Stangland Septic Services, Drain-Pro, Inc., Oceanside Services Corp., Northwest Cascade, Inc. and Action Services Corp. |
|[pic] | |
|Bids Sealed & Signed? |All five (5) bids were signed and sealed. |
|Received all required submittals?|All five (5) Vendors provided the required submittals. Vendors were required to submit the following documents: |
| |Signed Authorized Offer and Contract Signature Page |
| |Price Sheets for each County bidding |
| |Bidder Profile |
| |Non-Cost Answers |
| |1 original, 3 copies and 1 electronic copy |
|Specification compliance? |There were no specifications that needed to be reviewed. Terms and Conditions were placed in the solicitation document. |
|Price Sheet compliance? |Vendors were required to complete a Price Sheet for each County they were submitting pricing for. All of the Vendors supplied the |
| |appropriate Price Sheet Forms. The Contracts Consultant then used the Vendor’s Price Sheet to complete the Cost Evaluation Worksheet.|
|Other Responsiveness checks? |No other responsive checks were completed. |
|Bid Evaluation—Responsibility |
|Past Performance? |Two of the five Vendors held previous Contracts with the State, Stangland Septic Services and NW Cascade. Both vendors were in good |
| |standing with the state and had no performance issues on record. Both Vendors’ references were contacted and they are in good |
| |standing also. |
| |Two other Vendors, Oceanside Services and Action Services were determined to be qualified vendors and they both had references |
| |checked. The references for these vendors came back good and they are in good standing. |
|Qualifications? |All of the Vendor’s will be providing service and did not list any subcontractors. |
| | |
|OMWBE Evaluation: |None of the Vendors are Minority or Women Owned. |
|Bid Evaluation—Scoring |
|Evaluation: |Vendors were scored on Cost and Non-Cost factors. 700 points were given for cost and 300 points for Non-cost. The Vendor with the |
|[pic] |highest total score for each County would be the Successful Vendor. The following Vendors were Awarded Counties: |
| | |
| |Stangland Septic Services - Grays Harbor County |
| | |
| |Oceanside Services Corporation – Pacific County, Skamania County and Wahkiakum County |
| | |
| |Northwest Cascade, Inc. – Clallam County, Clark County, Cowlitz County, King County, Kitsap County, Lewis County, Mason County, |
| |Pierce County, Skagit County, Snohomish County, Thurston County and Whatcom County |
| | |
| |Action Services Corporation – Jefferson County |
| | |
| |Drain-Pro bid on four counties but they were not the highest scoring, so they were not Awarded any Counties. |
|Results & Recommendation |
|Savings: |More Counties are represented on the new Contract; however, there are still no Vendors available in the Eastern Region. |
| |There seems to be some savings from the previous Contract, but there are also some rates that have increased. Savings cannot be |
| |determined at this time. |
|Recommendation: |In the best interest of the State, four Awards should be made. Awards shall be made to Stangland Septic Services, Oceanside Services |
|[pic] |Corp., Northwest Cascade, Inc. and Action Services Corp. All four Vendors have been determined to be the highest scoring Vendors for |
| |Cost and Non-Cost factors. |
| | |
| |An Award shall be made on 1/2/2013 with the Contract effective on 1/9/2013 pending any protests. |
|Award Activities |
|Implementation Plan | |
|WEBS | Notify bidders of the award via WEBS |
| |Once contract award has been finalized, archive bid in WEBS |
|Communication | Send apparent successful bidder announcement letter |
| |Send Award Announcement letters to all bidders |
| |Email UM a brief award announcement for Bi-Weekly Broadcast |
|Contract | Model Contract updated to reflect Bid Amendment language |
|PCMS | Populate PCMS Info Tab |
| |Complete PCMS Expanded Description Tab |
| |Add Web remark in the PCMS Remarks Tab announcing the award of the contract |
| |Add at least 5-FAQ remarks in the PCMS Remarks Tab |
| |Complete PCMS Internet Tab to include relevant search terms |
| |Complete PCMS Commodities Tab |
| |Complete PCMS Vendors Tab |
| |Complete PCMS Customer Tab |
| |Complete PCMS Fees Tab |
| |Complete PCMS WBE/MBE Percents |
| |Include relevant search terms in the PCMS Internet Tab |
| |(Tip: For best results, ask your contractor(s) to provide search terms) |
|Post Contract to GA Website |Copy the following files into the G:\Shared Info\INTERNET folder: |
| |Copy Contract file (07612c.doc or pdf) |
|Link to: Current Contract Portal |Copy the price sheet (07612p.doc or xls or pdf) |
|Training |Copy the specification (07612s.doc or xls, or pdf) if applicable |
| |Copy the bid tab (07612t.doc or xls or pdf) |
| |Copy the bid document (07612b.doc or xls, or pdf ) |
| |Copy the bid Amendment (07612a.doc or pdf ) |
| |Copy the award memo to file & checklist document (07612m. doc or xls or pdf) |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.