While the rubric grading might have seemed overly strict and bureaucratic, keep in mind that at the end of the day it's intended to stand up in court because the SFMTA could get sued given how high the stakes are and would have to demonstrate that it was a fair and transparent process.
As well, the priorities are very different now compared to 2018. The initial pilot accepted open-ended proposals and had the goal of determining whether scooters were in the public interest at all - Scoot and Skip won because their applications addressed concerns that none of the other applicants did (https://www.sfmta.com/projects/powered-scooter-share-permit-...).
This process was essentially an RFP where the SFMTA was clear on what they wanted, meaning that the firms with more operating experience, better equipment, and a stronger financial position had an advantage.
Looking at the application, Skip appears to have been screwed over on other categories too. They got a low score on "sustainability" even though they rebuild/repair broken scooters instead of throwing in the trash (like many of the other applicants). And they have actual employees instead of contractors, yet they scored low on the employment metric.
The broader issue is why even have an artificial limit for scooters? Imagine if SFMTA limited roads to just 2 car manufacturers and a set number of vehicles...
Even if Skip made 4.0 in labor, sustainability, and safety -- and the chances are they would not have done that, given that nobody else got higher than 3.5 in the first two of those categories -- they'd have come in just over 70, and still have missed the cut. So the parent poster is absolutely right.
As to the second question, despite being pretty pro-regulation myself, I don't know whether the artificial limit is really worth imposing at this point. A year and a half ago, I would have said maybe it was, based on the way scooters had become a borderline menace in San Jose -- but there don't seem to be nearly as many of them now, I suspect in part because the novelty has worn out and in part because, as someone else noted in this comment section, the prices have substantially jumped compared not just to the $2-for-30-minutes rental bikes (when they're available, granted) but to Uber/Lyft.
You need to limit scooter players because otherwise it because a game of funding and attrition, multiple companies dumping city full fo scooters in a competition for availability. All other qualities will be overlooked.
Just legalize the scrapping of scooters that have been in one place on public property for more than 24 hours. Let the general public hunt these things down tear them apart and sell them as scrap and spare parts.
The problem would sort itself out real damn quick.
Not sure why this isn't the top comment. Clearly the case. Skip is very clearly an also ran in every category, and are now trying to make it about less than it really was.
Notably, Lyfy was rejected with much higher scores and no failing categories. So Skip didnt even barely miss. It was a true whiff.
Ultimately sad, because yes, SF does have issues with companies not following the rules and profiting, but this does not appear to be such a case.
The broader issue is why even have an artificial limit for scooters? Imagine if SFMTA limited roads to just 2 car manufacturers and a set number of vehicles...