Source: https://portofoakland.nextrequest.com/requests/19-71
Timestamp: 2020-08-14 23:44:42
Document Index: 543930317

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6255', '§ 6255', '§ 6254', '§ 1060', '§ 3426', '§ 6255']

Request 19-71 - NextRequest - Modern FOIA & Public Records Request Software
Request #19-71
As of August 14, 2020, 4:44pm
We would like to receive a copy of the rating and how we were scored? And the winning proposal for the selected firm.
for Both RFP-18-19/14 and RFP 18-19/17
Maritime, Purchasing
For RFP 18/19-17, we’ve released all requested records. For RFP 18/19-14, we released the evaluation materials but no award had been made and, accordingly, there is no winning proposal to release. Additionally, the Port would not release any proposals for RFP 18/19-14 since under Port Resolution 19-80 (released) the Port may conduct a new procurement that may include a RFP, and therefore, the public interest in ensuring a fair future process by not releasing proposals for the same services outweighs the small public interest in releasing proposals for an RFP that was not awarded. (Gov. Code § 6255.)
On the evaluation materials, names of evaluators have been redacted because of the strong public interest in not disclosing how the Port assigns evaluators so that the Port may ensure it receives proposals that do not unduly target individual evaluators. This interest outweighs the public interest in disclosing individual names, especially since the remainder of the evaluation criteria and scoring is available. (Gov. Code § 6255.)
On the released proposal for RFP 18/19-17, we’ve redacted portions that are exempt from disclosure under the PRA (including contact information for references, VINs, and insurance policy numbers) because they constitute proprietary and/or trade secret information (Gov. Code § 6254(k); Evid. Code § 1060; Civ. Code § 3426.1(d)) and also because they constitute proprietary information that proposers typically prefer to remain confidential and that are not necessary for evaluating responsiveness to the RFP, and therefore the public interest in withholding such information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. (Gov. Code § 6255(a).)
July 18, 2019, 4:19pm
RFP 18-19-17 Maritime Security Patrol Services_Written Evaluation Sheets.pdf-redacted.pdf
RFP 18-19-17 Cypress Private Security proposal.pdf-redacted.pdf
2019-06-13 Agenda Report.pdf
RFP 18-19-17 Maritime Security Patrol Services_Panel Interview Evaluation Sheet.pdf-redacted.pdf
2019-07-11 Agenda Report.pdf
RFP 18-19-14 Security Guard Services MHSLP_Panel Interview Evaluation Sheet (redacted).pdf
RFP 18-19-14 Security Guard Services MHSLP_Written Evaluation Sheet (redacted).pdf
Reso 19-80.pdf
July 18, 2019, 4:18pm
Hello - The Board did not make any award on RFP 18/19-14. The records reflecting this decision will be available next week, after which we can release any records that are still responsive and can be released. We have extended the due date for an additional week in the meantime. Thank you.
July 12, 2019, 5:39pm by Eugene Park (Staff)
07/19/2019 (was 07/12/2019).
July 12, 2019, 5:38pm
07/12/2019 (was 07/05/2019).
July 2, 2019, 12:45pm
Hello: We've released the requested records for RFP 18/19-17. Evaluator names were redacted from the score sheets and certain proprietary information was redacted from the winning proposal. We will provide a more detailed explanation in our closing response.
The contract for RFP 18/19-14 has not yet been awarded and therefore we cannot release records. The contract will be considered for the Board's approval on July 11, 2019. If approved during that meeting, we will release responsive records. We are extending the due date in the meantime. Thank you.
July 2, 2019, 12:44pm by Eugene Park (Staff)
July 2, 2019, 12:39pm
June 25, 2019, 2:07pm by Eugene Park (Staff)
June 25, 2019, 2:07pm
Added: Maritime, Purchasing.