Loading...
09-06-2007 , APPROVED 9-20-07 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6,2007 8:30 A.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS A Regular Selection Advisory Committee Meeting was held on Thursday, September 6, 2007, at City Hall, Council Chambers, 200 N. Church St. PERMANENT SAC MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Mark Sutter, Financial Services, Chairperson and Brian Denmark, Facilities PERMANENT SAC MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Johnson, Public Works; Dr. Jorge Garcia, Utilities, and David Weir, Community Development SAC ALTERNATES PRESENT: Gilbert Morales, Utilities; Dan Soriano, Public Works, and Tom Schuster, Community Development CITY STAFF PRESENT: Martha Montoya and Nora Jones, Purchasing USER DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Eric Martin, Facilities and David Dollahon, Community Development CITY MANAGER DESIGNATED MEMBERS PRESENT: Tomas Mendez, Facilities; Lori Grumet, Public Services; Jan Lauterbach, Community Development, and Vera Zamora, Community Development OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Newby, Steve Newby Architects and Associates 1. Call Meeting to Order. Dr. Sutter called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. 2. Review and Approve Minutes of August 16, 2 00 7. MOTION: Mr.Morales moved and Mr.Denmark seconded to approve the minutes as presented. Dr. Sutter asked that the word"Quest"be changed to"Guest"under the attendance list where it reads, "Quest Present". This needs to be changed to"Guest Present"or"Others Present". The minutes will reflect the change. Dr. Sutter called for the vote on the motion to approve the minutes as amended. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. SELECTION ADVISORY COTEE MEETING APPROVED 9-20-07 OF THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES SEPTEMBER 6,2007 3. Review RFP 07-08-106, Affordable Housing Program. Mr. Dollahon from the user group gave his general comments. Mr. Dollahon said that they are trying to get the proposers to make a recommendation of the options that are available to us, and help facilitate the implementation of both the ordinance and how we will have to implement it on our side. For example, how are we going to staff it? How is the money going to be handled? How are we going to collect the money? How will the land dedication be tracked? From an implementation standpoint, we want them to recommend to us how to staff it and manage it. If there is a revenue stream coming in, is it going to be restricted to loans? Is this going to be like a revolving loan fund? Are we going to make grants out of it? I hope we will be able to identify a mechanism to create revenues, and then we will be able to do grants and loans. Mr. Dollahon stated that we need public input from the players such as the homebuilder's association, housing providers, and the realtor's association. Mr. Dollahon said that if you look at the budget, we are spending about 1% of affordable housing from the strategic plan standpoint. That money is solely our federal dollars from HUD. We are looking for a mechanism to either produce affordable housing outright or to create a revenue stream. After making general comments, the committee went through the proposal page by page. PAGE 1 No changes. PAGE 2 In the Overview section, Paragraph D was deleted. Mr. Denmark suggested mentioning the funding availability of the project. Dr. Sutter recommended that this could be stated in the Overview section in place of Paragraph D that was deleted. Dr. Sutter suggested in the first sentence in the Overview section,we can say that the City is looking for proposals for professional services from a"generic expertise" in housing, and tie it in with the technical proposal. PAGE 3 In the Scope of Work section, Paragraph B,the second to the last sentence,the verbiage, "and the surrounding unincorporated areas of Dona Ana County"was deleted. The proposers have to be aware of the ETZ, said Mr. Dollahon. PAGE 4 Mr. Denmark suggested adding verbiage in the proposal that talks about design standards and impact fees. You want them to go beyond just policy issues and look at actual municipal code issues as well. They need to look at the infill policy, etc. The paragraph right before Paragraph A,the word"successful"will be replaced with the word "selected". Dr. Sutter questioned the verbiage"personnel needs". He said that the potential staffing needs and operating needs for implementing these various programs need to 2 SELECTION ADVISORY COQTEE MEETING APPROVED 9-20-07 OF THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES SEPTEMBER 6,2007 be identified. Mr. Dollahon can add this information to Paragraph A right below that sentence. Mr. Denmark suggested changing the sentence right before Paragraph A to read, "The selected proposer needs to demonstrate: a clearly defined and described implementation strategy, etc." Mr. Dollahon said that if the proposer identifies a program for us to implement,this can be a category, and this information could be added in between Paragraphs A and B. PAGE 5 In between Paragraphs C and D, Dr. Sutter suggested adding a separate paragraph regarding deliverables. In Paragraph D, Mr. Denmark suggested to include language that will state that the program will be finished first, and then go to a City Council work session for direction before you can proceed to the second step. Mr. Dollahon stated that when they generate the options available for consideration and the advantages and disadvantages,the pitfalls,the pluses and the minuses associated with anyone of the options, we will need to go to City Council first and ask the City Council if they are going to consider any or all of these, and if not,which ones won't be considered. Mr. Dollahon will need to look at a public input meeting to get recommendations before it goes to a City Council work session. This way,the homebuilders and realtors have been given a target at least once, and they aren't going to the work session without any prior knowledge. Mr. Denmark asked Mr. Dollahon to define"affordable"? Mr. Dollahon stated that "affordable"means 145%of area median income. Ms. Montoya stated that the insurance information needs to be added under the General Instructions section. Mr. Dollahon said that he is having them include general liability but never have had errors and omissions on his proposals. He said that general commercial liability ends up in the contract. Mr. Denmark said that if you are dealing with policy,that isn't a big deal, but when you start getting into the implementation where they are purchasing land or developing it,that's jumping into a different arena. Mr. Dollahon said from an implementation standpoint,they are going to help us implement the program at the City level, so they wouldn't be managing any of the...if we did land management or fund management, they wouldn't be handling any part of that. We would either do a RFP to hire an outside consultant to manage that or we would just do it in-house. Mr. Denmark agreed with Mr. Dollahon, but he suggested to double check with the Legal Department and work it out with the Purchasing Department. Dr. Sutter asked Ms. Montoya to check with the Legal Department to see whether the errors and omissions have to be included with this proposal. In the General Instructions section, Dr. Sutter recommended deleting the second sentence in that paragraph. PAGE 6 The evaluation criterion weights were changed as follows: 3 SELECTION ADVISORY COTTEE MEETING APPROVED 9-20-07 OF THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES SEPTEMBER 6,2007 2. Qualifications/competence of project team members to perform services required by this project. 25% 6. Clarity of proposal. 5% Dr. Sutter suggested updating information in Paragraph B, Cost Proposal Content, Paragraph 2, about having a City Council work session and an additional public meeting. PAGE 7 No changes. After reviewing the proposal page by page,the committee stated that local preference and jobs in progress will be factors in the evaluation. A sentence needs to be included in the proposal that will state that interviews are not anticipated. The pre-proposal conference will be non-mandatory. Cost will be used as a factor. The proposal does not need to come back to SAC for another review. 4. Review RFP 07-08-133, New Regional Recreation&Aquatics Center. The user department gave their introductory comments. There was a lengthy discussion on the submission of cost and whether the proposers will understand the RFP. The committee went through the proposal page by page. PAGES 1-2 No changes. PAGE 3 In section 1.1.1, first sentence,the word"three"was changed to"two". In section 1.1.3,the first sentence was deleted. The rest of the paragraph needs to be switched around to state that the negotiations occur first, and then the recommendation is made to the City Council. Section 1.1.5 is part of 1.1.4. The numbers 1.1.5 need to be deleted. PAGE 4 In the last sentence on top of Page 4, "6"needs to be entered after the word"Criteria". The pre-proposal meeting will be required. This is in section 1.2.5. Throughout the document,the word"Qualifications"needs to be replaced with the word "proposals". PAGE 5 No changes. 4 SELECTION ADVISORY COTTEE MEETING APPROVED 9-20-07 OF THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES SEPTEMBER 6,2007 PAGE 6 Under Criterion 1,the question that reads, "Is the proposed fee fair and reasonable?"will be reworded to read, "Is the proposed fee reasonable given the technical approach." The user group clarified that when the proposers submit their cost,they are not competing for the low bid. During the pre-proposal meeting,the firms will get the opportunity to ask more questions about the criterion if they need more information. PAGE 7 In section 1.12, first sentence,the word"three"was changed to"two". In section 2.1, last sentence, the words"but one"were added after the word"All". PAGE 8 Some of the dates were revised for the construction schedule. Approval by SAC to issue RFP Sept. 6, 2007 RFP issued to top qualified firms Sept. 12, 2007 Non-mandatory pre-proposal meeting Sept. 26, 2007 Deadline for submittal of RFP questions Oct. 2, 2007 Proposals from construction management firms due Oct. 12, 2007 Review proposals by SAC Oct. 25, 2007 City Council award(tentative) Dec. 3, 2007 "Interview with respondents"and"final selection of construction management firm"were deleted. All dates throughout the document need to be adjusted according to the revised construction schedule. PAGE 9 In section 3.1.1, first paragraph, last sentence, verbiage was added at the end of that sentence that read, "unless requested by owner." PAGE 10 No changes. PAGE 11 In section 3.3.2,the date was changed from "November 19, 2007"to"December 3, 2007 (tentative)". PAGE 12 No changes. PAGE 13 No changes. 5 SELECTION ADVISORY COTTEE MEETING APPROVED 9-20-07 OF THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES SEPTEMBER 6,2007 PAGE 14 In section 4.2.1, first sentence,the word"information"will be inserted after the word "required". In section 4.2.1, second sentence,the words"City Hall"will be replaced by the"Regional Recreation and Aquatic Center". The date in the last paragraph in section 4.2.1 of"October 15, 2007'needs to be changed to "October 12, 2007". In section 4.5.1, first paragraph,the Schedule B revisions will be the same as they were in the RFQ that went out previously. In section 4.5.1, the last sentence on Page 14 will read, "Section 111, Subsection B,cost as a factor will be used pursuant to Schedule B." Declaration and Certification of Submission Dr. Sutter recommended changing the font and bolding the sentence that reads, "Please state any exceptions, ..." The sentence with the asterisk needs to be placed before this sentence. Dr. Sutter suggested expanding on how the criterion will be used for the cost. Ms. Grumet suggested sending staff the analysis data with the packet before they conduct their evaluation. After the committee reviewed the proposal and the declaration and certification of submission,they made additional general comments, and then they discussed and voted on the voting issues. Voting Issues The title of the RFP and the proposal number need to be consistent with the RFQ that went out previously. The RFP number will be 07-08-024A. Mr. Mendez will check with the Legal Department regarding the insurance requirements that need to be included in the proposal. Ms. Montoya will check with the Legal Department regarding whether to include a request for a bid bond in the proposal. The standard advertising requirement will be waived by the SAC. Dr. Sutter called for a motion. MOTION: Mr.Denmark moved and Mr. Schuster seconded to waive the advertising of the proposal. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. The criterion deviates from the standard SAC criterion. Dr. Sutter called for a motion. MOTION: Mr.Denmark moved and Ms. Grumet seconded to deviate from the standard SAC criterion. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. 6 SELECTION ADVISORY COTTEE MEETING APPROVED 9-20-07 OF THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES SEPTEMBER 6,2007 Cost will not be used as a factor as stated in Schedule B, but it will be a qualifications-based competitive proposal. Dr. Sutter called for a motion. MOTION: Mr.Denmark moved and Mr. Schuster seconded that cost will not be used as a factor as stated in Schedule B,but it will be a qualifications-based competitive proposal. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. There will be a non-mandatory pre-proposal conference, but this is not a voting issue. Interviews will not be held, because there is enough information in the proposal. Both firms are highly qualified per the RFQ that went out. Dr. Sutter called for a motion. MOTION: Ms. Grumet moved and Mr.Denmark seconded to waive having interviews. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. The page limit to the RFP response has been increased to 35 pages. This is not a voting issue. The committee's consensus was not to waive local preference even though both of the qualifying firms are from Albuquerque,NM. cr In order to be consistent, if the RFQ that went out previously stated that equitable distribution of business would not be used, then equitable distribution of business will be waived. Dr. Sutter called for a motion. MOTION: Mr.Denmark moved and Mr. Schuster seconded to waive equitable distribution of business if this was stated in the RFQ. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Adjourn. MOTION: Mr. Denmark moved and Mr. Schuster seconded to adjourn. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting ended at 10:40 a.m. Dr. Mark Sutter, Chairperson 7