25F - AGMT - EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION SRVS

Home Browse Search

Approval of Fire/EMS Emergency Ambulance Transportation and Related Services Agreement September 17, 2012 Page 6 PrnrPCC As stated above, the rating process was designed to provide a method that evaluates the Bidder's business as a whole and evaluates the proposal specific to the operational requirements of the city in the delivery of 9-1-1 emergency transportation services as listed in the RFP. Each member of the Proposal Grading Panel reviewed eight (8) categories defined as Item Numbers 2,3,4,5,7,10,11,13 on the rating sheet. Each member of the Grading Panel ranked the proposal responses from best to least responsive (a ranking of "1" would reflect the best response). Responses were limited to a rating of 1, 2 or 3. The Grading Panel could, however, assign the same ranking for a given item to more than one Bidder if it was thought that the proposals for a given item were equivalent. The listed requirements within each Item Number were assigned a weighting based on the item's relative importance. A final "score" was derived by averaging the individual Grading Panel Members' rankings for each item, multiplying this number by the relative weight assigned to the item, and then calculating the cumulative score. Using this methodology, the lowest weighted average numerical score would reflect the best proposal. RFP Grading Panel The RFP Grading Panel consisted of three `primary evaluators' and two OCFA `staff evaluators'. The primary evaluators included an OCFA Fire Captain with over 22 years of front line experience with the City of Santa Ana Fire Department, OCFA's EMS Coordinator with extensive EMS experience including ten years with the Orange County EMS agency as Program Manager. As part of his Program Manager responsibilities, he was responsible for the oversight of all 9-1-1 Emergency Ambulance Transportation RFP in the County to ensure they were fair and competitive and consistent with State guidelines. The third primary evaluator was a Sergeant from the City of Santa Ana with 17 years of experience working in the city with first-hand experience dealing with the community and Fire/EMS responders. The primary evaluators reviewed and evaluated the eight (8) narrative responses. To avoid any bias or conflict of interest, the panel evaluators were not provided the relative weighting for each item. The staff evaluators were the OCFA EMS Battalion Chief and Finance Manager/Auditor, both with extensive experience with EMS Request for Proposals. The two staff evaluators evaluated the eight (8) mandatory requirements (Mutual Aid, HIPAA Compliance, Corporate Compliance, Phase I Approval, Conflict of Interest, Statement of Truth, Non-Collusions, and Agreement to provide insurance) of the proposal for compliance. The mandatory submission items were not graded or ranked, but rather checked for inclusion and completeness by the staff evaluators. Grading Criteria 25F-6