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.

Google Online Preview   Download