BOARD MEETING DATE: March 13, 1998 AGENDA NO. 5
PROPOSAL:
Execute Contract for Developing a Point Source Air Toxics Emissions Inventory as Part of Implementing Environmental Justice Initiative # 2
SYNOPSIS:
At its December 1997 meeting, the Board approved the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to develop a point source air toxics emissions inventory by consolidating and updating AQMDs toxic emissions data. The updated inventory will be used for the modeling and risk assessment of the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Assessment Study (MATES II) being conducted as part of implementing Environmental Justice Initiative #2. All proposals submitted were evaluated by a diverse panel of technically qualified individuals according to the criteria specified in the RFP. This action is to execute a contract with Applied Modeling, Inc. (AMI). Funding of up to $100,000 is available in the FY 1997-98 Budget.
COMMITTEE:
Administrative, February 20, 1998, Recommended for Approval
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize the Chairman to execute a contract with Applied Modeling, Inc. to develop a point source air toxics emissions inventory at a cost not to exceed $100,000.
Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Acting Executive Officer
Background
On December 11, 1997, AQMD released RFP# 9798-13 to develop a point source air toxics emissions inventory for the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES II). The objective of the MATES II Study is to quantify the current magnitude of population exposure from existing sources of selected toxic air contaminants as part of implementing AQMDs Environmental Justice Initiative # 2. The new point source air toxics emissions inventory, to be used in the MATES II Study, will primarily be based on toxics emissions data from the AQMDs AB2588 and Annual Emissions Reporting Program databases as well as special toxic inventory studies and data contained in the AQMP. The selected contractor will be required to evaluate and consolidate these data and prepare a final inventory formatted for input into specified dispersion model(s) which will be used for conducting exposure analysis.
Outreach
In accordance with the AQMDs consulting and contracting policies, a public notice advertising the RFP and inviting bids was published in the following publications:
|
1. |
Antelope Valley Press |
10. |
La Opinion |
19. |
Precinct Reporter |
|
2. |
Black Voice News |
11. |
La Voz |
20. |
Rafu Shimpo |
|
3. |
Chinese Daily News |
12. |
Los Angeles Daily News |
21. |
Riverside Press Enterprise |
|
4. |
Eastern Group Publications |
13. |
Los Angeles Sentinel |
22. |
San Bernardino Sun |
|
5. |
El Chicano |
14. |
Los Angeles Times |
23. |
Santa Clarita Signal |
|
6. |
Excelsior, The |
15. |
M/W/DVBE Source |
24. |
State of California Contracts |
|
7. |
Inland Empire Hispanic News |
16. |
Orange County Register |
Register |
|
|
8. |
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin |
17. |
Palm Springs Desert Sun | ||
|
9. |
Korea Central Daily |
18. |
Philippine News |
Additionally, potential bidders were identified using the Los Angeles County MTA, and Cal Trans Directories of Certified Minority, Women, Disadvantaged and Disabled Veterans Business Enterprises; the Inland Area Opportunity Pages Ethnic/Women Business & Professional Directory; AQMDs own electronic listing of certified minority vendors; and AQMD Purchasings mailing list. Copies of the RFP were mailed to the Black and Latino Legislative Caucuses and various minority chambers of commerce and business associations; and placed on the Internet at AQMDs Web site [http://www.aqmd.gov, "Business & Job Opportunities" icon] and AQMDs bidders 24-hour telephone message line (909) 396-2724. In addition, copies of the RFP were also mailed to over 130 consulting firms, identified by AQMD as potential bidders. A bidders conference was also held on January 8, 1998 which was attended by sixteen firms.
Bid Evaluation
Five proposals were received in response to the RFP by the submittal deadline of 3 p.m. on January 22, 1998. Of the five proposals, none were from disabled veteran owned business enterprises, one was from a certified minority-owned business (Asian-Indian), and none were from non-certified minority-owned business enterprises. Attachment A reflects the panel evaluation of the proposals and the respective ratings.
Of the five proposals, two proposals were deemed not technically qualified (i.e., scored below 70 points based on the technical criteria specified in the RFP). The remaining three proposals which passed the technical criteria (Step 1) proceeded to the next step (Step 2) for scoring points for cost. The evaluation panel unanimously rated Applied Modeling, Inc. (AMI) the highest based on their clear understanding of the work to be performed, specific approaches to implement the required tasks, and extensive experience in air toxics emission inventories and database management. In addition, AMI was the lowest bidder among the technically qualified proposals giving them the highest cost score. The evaluation panel recommended that Applied Modeling Inc. be awarded a contract based on its receiving the highest overall final score of 79.2.
Panel Composition
The evaluation panel consisted of a representative from the California Air Resources Board; AQMDs Director of Information Management; a Planning Manager from AQMDs Planning and Policy; and an Air Quality Analysis and Compliance Supervisor from AQMDs AB2588 Air Toxics Program. Of the four panelists, two are women and two are men. Additionally, one of the panelists is Hispanic American, one is Asian-Indian American, and two are Caucasian.
Resource Impacts
An amount not to exceed $100,000 has been budgeted for the development of a point source air toxics emissions inventory for FY 1997-98.
Attachment
Evaluation of Proposals for RFP #9798-13
ATTACHMENT A
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS FOR RFP #9798-13
|
Proposer |
Technical |
Carry-Over* |
Cost |
DVBE |
Final |
|
Score (Step 1) |
To Step 2 |
Points** |
*** |
Score |
|
|
Applied Modeling, Inc. |
88.3 |
9.2 |
70 |
No |
79.2 |
|
Alpine Geophysics |
84.3 |
7.2 |
67.2 |
No |
74.4 |
|
Levine-Fricke-Recon |
79.5 |
4.8 |
53.2 |
No |
58.0 |
|
**** |
| * | Only 50% of Step 1 (Technical Criteria) points over 70 are carried over to Step 2. |
| ** | 70 points awarded to the lowest cost proposal and prorated for others. |
| *** | Certified DVBE/Joint Ventures - 10 points for DVBE Joint Ventures. |
| **** | A minimum of 70 points was required in Step 1 (Technical Points) in order to continue in the evaluation process. Firms which did not score a minimum of 70 points in Step 1 of the proposal evaluation process are not shown on this attachment. |
/ / /