My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
R2009-101 AUTHORIZING LETTER RESPONSE TO POST-AWARD PROTEST
COD
>
City Clerk
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2009
>
R2009-101 AUTHORIZING LETTER RESPONSE TO POST-AWARD PROTEST
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2015 11:50:39 AM
Creation date
10/13/2015 11:50:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Resolution/Ordinance
Res Ord Num
R2009-101
Res Ord Title
AUTHORIZING LETTER RESPONSE TO POST-AWARD PROTEST MCDONALD TRANSIT ASSOCIATES, INC.
Department
Mass Transit
Approved Date
6/15/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
�OF�FC,9 <br /> u �� � <br /> '��'��,- CITY OF DECATUR ILLINOIS <br /> '��-_ #1 GARY K. ANDERSON PLAZA DECATUR, ILLINOIS 62523-1196 <br /> '��LI NO�S� <br /> June 15, 2009 <br /> Robert T. Babbitt,President <br /> McDonald Transit Associates, Inc. <br /> rive Suite 175 <br /> 3800 Sandshell D , <br /> Fort Worth, Texas 76137 <br /> RE: Post-Award Protest <br /> Request for Proposals—Transit Management <br /> City of Decatur, Illinois <br /> Dear Mr. Babbitt, <br /> On June 9, 2009, the City of Decatur received your Post-Award Protest letter, dated June 5, <br /> 2009, concerning the Decatur City Council's decision to award a transit management contract to <br /> First Transit, Inc. In your letter you state two complaints: <br /> • "Durin the Council meetin First Transit was asked to and agreed to modify <br /> g �� <br /> their competitive proposal. Our firm was not given the same opportunity." and <br /> �• "In the council meeting,the objective criteria were not used." <br /> Concerning your first complaint, you do not state what modification of their proposal First <br /> Transit was allegedly asked to make. I assume that you are xeferring to the issue of providing an <br />, annual customer service survey as part of the management fee. The video of the June 1 St City <br /> Council meeting shows that there was discussion about annual surveys, and that First Transit <br /> stated that the firm would provide an annual survey at no additional charge. But the video <br /> clearly shows that First Transit was not asked to modify their proposal. Please also note that the <br /> contract was not amended to require an annual survey at no additional charge. The contract <br /> was prepared by staff and delivered to the City Clerk before the City Council meeting, and it was <br /> not changed in any way during or after the meeting. <br /> Concerning your second complaint, the City Council did consider the objective criteria specified <br /> in the Request for Proposals (RFP)before making its decision. Council members were informed <br /> before the meeting of the seven criteria that were used by the Evaluation Committee to score the <br /> two firms. In Attachment 1 to your letter, you included the following documents that were sent <br /> to all Council members by the City Clerlc before this meeting: <br /> • A memo from the City Manager and the Mass Transit Administrator suinmarizing <br /> the procurement process and the Evaluation Coxnmittee's work; <br /> • The Bid Tabulation sheet showing the transit management fees proposed by both <br /> firms; and <br /> America's A.qribusiness Center <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.