My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
25F - AGMT - EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION SRVS
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2012
>
09/17/2012
>
25F - AGMT - EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION SRVS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/13/2012 3:37:36 PM
Creation date
9/13/2012 3:36:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
City Manager's Office
Item #
25F
Date
9/17/2012
Destruction Year
2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
132
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
Approval of Fire/EMS Emergency Ambulance <br />Transportation and Related Services Agreement <br />September 17, 2012 <br />Page 8 <br />perform the billing service. The specific terms and conditions of the contract would be agreed <br />upon by the City Manager, Contractor, and City Attorney. <br />SUMMARY: <br />The proposals were similar in overall content; although, there were notable differences between <br />the three companies in terms of, responses to the RFP requirements, 9-1-1 operating <br />experience, and depth of resources. <br />While Schaefer did submit the most competitive priced bid the panel felt that the bid submittal <br />lacked sufficient detail and was ambiguous in many areas. Specific areas of concern with <br />Schaefer's response to the overall operational system that lack detail, poor discussion at the <br />personnel and training, did not have the current communication equipment but was committed to <br />acquire it. Schaefer does not currently have any 9-1-1 contracts with other Orange County <br />jurisdictions. Some of the answers to the points were incomplete. The evaluation panel also felt <br />that Schaeffer did not appear to have sufficient depth of management required to manage the <br />contract. <br />Doctors submitted the highest cost for providing the service. While ranked as number 2, Doctors <br />also did not provide comprehensive answers to a number of the RFP requirements as CARE. <br />They also bid up to 8 units based on the call load, but the proposal reflects a cost almost $2.9 <br />million greater than Schaefer and $2.0 million greater than CARE's proposal. All three providers <br />were given the Santa Ana call and transport volume analysis, so the proposed price is <br />unreasonable in the panels opinion. <br />CARE was unanimously rated as number 1 overall. Other than price, CARE provided the most <br />comprehensive and robust response to the overall RFP requirements. Additionally, CARE has <br />the required communication equipment, and has agreed to a response time commitment to meet <br />code 2 and code 3 response times 93% (rather than the RFP 90%) of the time. CARE also <br />proposed a dedicated level of supervisory and management oversight in support of the Santa <br />Ana contract. <br />CARE is also CAAS accredited and has a depth of local/regional resources serving other Orange <br />County 9-1-1 ambulance contracts. <br />Listed below are some comparisons of the proposals submitted by CARE, Doctors, and <br />Schaefer. The list is not intended to be all-inclusive. <br />Key Areas CARE Doctors Schaefer <br />Cor orate CARE Corporate Doctor's corporate Schaefer corporate <br />25F-8
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.