2016-12-12 General Committee Agenda

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                             12 DECEMBER 2016


Alternative (Non-Conforming) Tenders
1. Cleanaway alternative tenders 1 and 2 proposed a small reduction in price via the use of
   existing collection vehicles and landfill plant.
2. JJ Richards alternative tenders proposed the use of second hand plant for B and C.
3. Veolia A+BC offer proposed a combined price for BC as a lump sum offer. This was later
   clarified and priced in accordance with the tender specifications and was then considered a
   conforming tender.

The alternative non-conforming offers by Cleanaway and JJ Richards were reviewed as part of
the tender evaluation. However as previous waste management contracts have run for a period
of up to 10 years, the cost savings of using second hand equipment when compared to the risks
associated with contract performance and visual appearance of second hand plant were deemed
excessive to offset the limited financial advantage associated with these alternatives. A decision
was made by the evaluation team not to accept or evaluate the Cleanaway or JJ Richards
alternatives.

Combined ABC Tender Offers
Cleanaway and Veolia submitted a Tender for a Combined ABC Contract with no provision for
Council to accept any one Separate Portion. (Veolia also submitted a tender for each Separable
Portion). The combined ABC tenders offer the advantage to Council of managing only one
contractor, compared to dealing with 3 individual contractors if contracts were let for each of the
three separable portions. The combined ABC offers also provide cost savings through sharing
equipment across each separable portion.

Tender Evaluation Process
As a result of the number of tender variations received the tender evaluation team developed a
seven stage process to ensure that all potential contract permutations (as per the previous table)
were properly evaluated. This process is outlined below.

Stage 1 – Each Separable Portions scored individually – non price scoring

Tenders for individual separable portions were initially scored on a range of non-price evaluation
criteria that had been identified in the tender documentation and referee checks with local
governments where the tenderers currently operate a contracted service. The Probity Auditor
attended and guided the evaluation and scoring to ensure there was no bias in the scoring. The
non-price portion of the scoring amounted to 65% of the total score.

Stage 2 – Price scoring added to each Separable Portions

A score of up to 35% for price was then added to the non-price score to obtain a final score for
each Separable Portion. If discounts were offered by tenderers they were applied during this
process.

Stage 3 – Selecting the best offer A+B+C

The most advantageous tenders for each separable portion were then reviewed to find the best
offer for Council. The best offer was found to be the individual offers by Veolia for A+B+C.

Stage 4 – Scoring of Combination offers (e.g. A+BC)

The various combinations of offers were then scored to find the best of the combinations of
separable portions offered, as some offers provided a substantial discount if more than 1 portion
was accepted. The best combination offer was from Veolia A+BC combined, which was better
than the A+B+C offer by Veolia.
                                                                                    Page 48 of 81