Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Rfp Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hillsborough County evaluation committee gives Waste Management top score in RFP 2424791
Summary
A Hillsborough County committee finalized evaluation scores for two bidders on RFP 2424791 for a covered materials processing facility, recording Waste Management with a final consensus score of 100 and the other bidder with 86.59; the committee asked Stephanie Watson to prepare an evaluation summary memorandum with a recommendation.
An evaluation committee for Hillsborough County's Solid Waste Management Department finalized scores for two bidders on RFP 2424791 for covered materials processing facility services and asked Stephanie Watson to prepare an evaluation summary memorandum with a recommendation.
The committee, meeting by remote communications media, recorded a final consensus score of 100 for Waste Management and 86.59 for the competing firm. Lisa Dimina, identified in the meeting as Chief Firebase Project, read procedural notices and told the panel "the cone of silence is still in effect," and that the meeting was being recorded.
The committee confirmed earlier individual criterion scores and the weighting used in the evaluation: Criteria 1 (qualifications, experience, references) — 10 points; Criteria 2 (financial strength, risk assessment, safety performance) — 5 points; Criteria 3 (approach to providing RMPF services) — 20 points; Criteria 4 (processing fee price) — 65 points; and Criteria 5 (D/MBE bonus points). For the price criterion (Criteria 4) the committee recorded 51.59 points for the first firm and 65 points for Waste Management. D/MBE bonus points remained at 0 for both bidders.
Committee members discussed strengths and concerns in the proposals during the reconvened evaluation. Members noted that one bidder (identified in the record with variants of "Balcones/Belconius/Valcony Resources") had purchased the property where its proposed facility would be sited and provided letters from offtake partners to take processed materials to market. Panel members said those offtake letters and site ownership strengthened that bidder's approach, but also noted that revenue-sharing offers were not part of the scoring in this evaluation.
Several committee members raised traffic and site-control issues in the Waste Management proposal, including a potential inbound/outbound ‘‘pinch point.’’ Reviewers said Waste Management proposed a county-dedicated scale and a dedicated traffic operator at the pinch point and provided additional documentation clarifying traffic management and construction timing. Committee discussion referenced an alley-vacation deed provision requiring issuance of a permit within five years after the effective date of the ordinance; one committee member read language from a city document noting that the petitioner "must be issued a permit no later than 5 years after the effective date of this ordinance," and another member said Waste Management had committed to complete construction within 16 months.
Panelists repeatedly confirmed consensus scores at multiple points in the meeting and, after tabulating all criteria, the chair read the final tallies and asked Stephanie Watson to prepare and send the evaluation summary memorandum with the committee's recommendation. Lisa Dimina said she would post the meeting recording when available.
The committee did not take a formal public vote in the meeting transcript; it reached consensus on scoring and directed Watson to prepare the evaluation memorandum that will communicate the committee's recommendation to procurement staff and county decision-makers.
