Loading...
01-01-2007 f APPROVED 3-1-07 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 1,2007 8:30 A.M. JOINT UTILITIES,CONFERENCE ROOM 213 A Regular Selection Advisory Committee Meeting was held on Thursday, February 1, 2007, at Joint Utilities, Conference Room 213, 680 Motel Blvd., Las Cruces,NM. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Mark Sutter, Financial Services, Chairperson Brian Denmark, Facilities David Maestas for Mike Johnson, Public Works Dr. Jorge Garcia, Utilities MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. David Weir, Community Development OTHERS PRESENT: John Tortelli, Purchasing Nora Jones, Purchasing Robert Romano, Financial Services Pat Degman, Financial Services Dick Gebhart, Financial Services Vincent Sanchez, Utilities Gilbert Morales, Utilities Pat Dominguez,Utilities Andrew Bencomo, Fire Randy Lara, Police Laurie Padilla, Police Eric Martin, Facilities 1. Call Meeting to Order. Dr. Sutter called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. 2. Review and Approve Minutes from the Meetings of November 16, 2006, December 21, 2006, and January 4, 2007. MOTION: Mr.Denmark moved and Mr. Maestas seconded to approve the November 16,2006 minutes as presented. No discussion. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr.Denmark moved and Mr.Maestas seconded to approve the December 21,2006 minutes as presented. For the record,Dr. Sutter stated that the minutes of November 2,2006 were amended and approved at the December 21,2006 meeting,but the minutes of November 2,2006 had already been amended,with the same changes, and approved at the November 16,2006 meeting. Dr. Sutter called for the vote on the motion. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr.Denmark moved and Mr.Maestas seconded to approve the January 4, 2007 minutes as presented. No discussion. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. AOFIN SELECTION ADVISORY COEE MEETING APPROVED 3-1-07 OF THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES FEBRUARY 1,2007 3. Evaluate RFP 06-07-182, Financial Advisor. Mr. Romano, Mr. Gebhart, and Ms. Degman joined the committee as the user department. The user department gave their introductory comments regarding the proposals that were submitted. Mr. Tortelli read the total scores less the high and the low scores. First Southwest Company 1355 RBC Capital Markets 1600 George K. Baum& Company 1350 Ten percent of the top-ranked score was 1440. Firms falling above the score of 1440 were considered. There was only one firm that fell within these limits, and that firm was RBC Capital Markets. Deductions for equitable distribution of business and local preference did not apply. Mr. Tortelli opened the cost proposal from RBC Capital Markets, and passed the cost proposal handout information to the committee so they could take a look at it. The cost proposal was not read out loud to the committee,thus was not recorded in the minutes. MOTION: Mr.Denmark moved and Mr. Maestas seconded to direct the user department to negotiate a contract with the top-rated firm of RBC Capital Markets, and take this recommendation to the City Council for their consideration. No discussion. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Romano, Mr. Gebhart, and Ms. Degman left the committee at this time. 4. Evaluate RFP 06-07-050, Organizational Analysis of Utility Services. Mr. Morales, Ms. Dominguez, and Mr. Sanchez joined the committee as the user department. The user department opened the discussion with their introductory comments regarding the proposals that were submitted. Dr. Sutter said that the Matrix Consulting Group had interesting points in their work program, and if the Mercer Group ends up being selected, it would be a good idea for the user group to look at some of these excellent questions and points from the Matrix Consulting Grcup. These types of issues were not raised by The Mercer Group. If the Mercer Group gets selected,they should address these points,because they are excellent ideas. Mr.Tortelli read the total scores less the high and the low scores. The Mercer Group, Inc. 1910 Matrix Consulting Group 1795 Ten percent of the top-ranked score was 1719. Firms falling above the score of 1719 were considered. Both firms fell within these limits. There were no deduction4 for jobs in progress and no bonuses for local preference. The Mercer Group, Inc. did not submit a state preference. 2 SELECTION ADVISORY COTTEE MEETING APPROVED 3-1-07 OF THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES FEBRUARY 1,2007 The cost proposals were: The Mercer Group, Inc. $75,000 Matrix Consulting Group $110,000 The cost ratio points added to their score were: The Mercer Group, Inc. 382 Matrix Consulting Group 245 The total final ratings were: The Mercer Group, Inc. 2292 Matrix Consulting Group 2040 MOTION: Mr.Denmark moved and Dr. Garcia seconded to direct the user department to negotiate a contract with The Mercer Group,Inc.and to bring this forward to the City Council for their consideration. No discussion. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Morales, Ms. Dominguez, and Mr. Sanchez left the committee at this time. 5. Evaluate RFP 06-07-060, Feasibility Study and Master Plan for Fire/Police Training Facility. Mr. Bencomo, Mr. Lara, and Mr. Martin joined the committee as the user department. The user department gave their introductory comments regarding the proposals that were submitted. Mr. Denmark stated that part of his motion will be that with the uniqueness of this particular project,there needs to be clarification on the responsibilities and duties on our side that we have to ensure that whoever the consultant will be,that the recommendation that goes 1i the City Council has that clear understanding of what their responsibilities are for us. Dr. Sutter said that in the contract negotiations, if ASA Architects is the firm to be selected, that there has to be a frank discussion about making sure that we aren't overwhelmed by what the architectural side of it is without making sure, as a feasibility study,that we are actually looking at the needs that go into the facilities and then worry about what it looks like and those types of things. We need to make sure that we meet the training needs and that is what is our priority rather than the facility itself. Dr. Sutter stated that in the contract negotiations,the point to address is the distribution of work to be performed. Mr. Denmark said that we need programming to be addressed, and once we know this,then they design the facility to meet the programming needs for the police and fire departments. He asked the user department to meet first before they meet with whoever is selected, and define and clarify what the roles are going to be. These issues need to be worked out before meeting with the consultant. 3 AV"N (a SELECTION ADVISORY COTEE MEETING APPROVED 3-1-07 OF THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES FEBRUARY 1,2007 Mr. Tortelli read the total scores less the high and the low scores. AMEC 1850 ASA Architects, P.A. 2055 Mountain Sun Architect 1280 The firm of ASA Architects scored the highest. Ten percent of their score was 205.50. Taking their score of 2055 and subtracting 205.50 from it resulted in the cutoff score of 1850. Any firm scoring above 1850 would qualify. The firms of AMEC and ASA Architects were the two firms that fell above the 1850 score. Both firms did not have jobs in progress. The only firm that qualified for a local preference was ASA Architects. AMEC submitted a state preference, but the local preference overrides a state preference. The cost proposals were: AMEC $236,500 ASA Architects $441,200 Both firms stated optional presentations in their cost proposals. After a short discussion, the consensus of the committee was to include what the proposers defined as optional as part of the total cost. The cost ratio points were: AMEC 370 ASA Architects 231 The preliminary ratings were: AMEC 2220 ASA Architects 2286 ASA Architects also received a local preference of five percent so another 103 points was added to their score. Local preference points were: AMEC 0 ASA Architects 103 The total final ratings were: AMEC 2220 ASA Architects 2389 MOTION: Mr.Denmark moved and Dr. Garcia seconded to have representation from Police,Fire,and Project Management to be classified as the user department to negotiate a contract along with Purchasing with the top-rated firm of ASA Architects, and if negotiations aren't successful,that we have the ability to negotiate with the second-ranked firm of AMEC and submit a recommendation to the City Council for their consideration. Mr. Denmark's recommendation is that whatever representation it is among the three departments,their responsibilities need to be defined so that it is clear when the staff is 4 SELECTION ADVISORY COTTEE MEETING APPROVED 3-1-07 OF THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES FEBRUARY 1,2007 involved, and it is clarified as to who is doing what. Whoever is the successful negotiating firm, staff needs to make sure that they are aware of what their responsibility will be, especially regarding communication. Dr. Sutter called for the vote on the motion. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Bencomo, Mr. Lara, and Mr. Martin left the committee at this time. 6. Other Items of Interest. Dr. Sutter recommended cancelling the SAC meeting of February 15, 2007. The next SAC meeting will be held on March 1,2007. 7. Adjourn. MOTION: Mr. Denmark moved and Dr. Garcia seconded to adjourn. All ayes. No discussion. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting ended at 9:42 a.m. Dr. Mark tter, Chairperson 5