Loading...
11-19-2004 APPROVED/4-21-05 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING LAS CRUCES,NM A Selection Advisory Committee meeting was held on Friday,November 19, 2004, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 N. Church Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Sutter, Chairperson, Financial Services David Maestas, Public Works Gilbert Morales for Jorge Garcia, Utilities Christine Ochs, Community Development Brian Denmark, Facilities OTHERS PRESENT: John Tortelli, Purchasing Nora Silva-Jones, Purchasing Terri Del Ferraro, Purchasing Victor Villarreal, Community Development Kelly Sweetser, Administration Andre Moquin, Administration Ken Mompellier, Public Services Joe Martinez, CVB Chairman and Owner of S & H RV John Ricky, Hilton General Manager Lori Grumet, Public Services Tomas Mendez, Facilities Lisa Fuselier, Facilities Mike Maier, Information Technology Ken Luchini, Information Technology Andrew Bencomo, Fire and Emergency Services Ed Jacquez, MVRDA Albert Flores, MVRDA 1. Call Meeting to Order. Mark Sutter called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m. 2. Approve Minutes of September 23, 2004 Meeting. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Gilbert Morales seconded to approve the minutes of September 23,2004 as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Approve Minutes of October 6, 2004 Meeting MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Gilbert Morales seconded to approve the minutes of October 6, 2004 as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Evaluate Risk Assessment Request for Proposals. Kelly Sweetser and Andre Moquin joined the committee as the user department. There was a discussion among the committee on whether or not cost was going to CW be a factor. After the conversation, the consensus was that cost would not be used as an evaluation factor. Selection Advisory Committee 1 November 19, 2004 APPROVED/4-21-05 Prior to evaluating the proposals, the user department gave their comments and overview. There was a concern with Meyners & Co., because they did not mention that they had risk assessment experience. Regarding the Wiener Strickland firm, their references were a little shaky, and their proposal was not clear. Lauterback, Boroschow, & Co. was rated the highest among the group prior to the evaluation of the scores. After a discussion among the user department and the committee, John Tortelli read the scores. The total final ratings were: Lauterbach, Boroschow, & Co. 1805 Meyners & Co. 1575 Wiener Strickland 1605 MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and David Maestas seconded to have staff negotiate a contract with the firm of Lauterbach,Boroschow, & Co. and present this to the City Council for consideration. Motion passed unanimously. Kelly Sweetser and Andre Moquin left the committee at this time. 5. Evaluate Convention Center RFP. Ken Mompellier, John Ricky, and Joe Martinez joined the committee as the user department. The user department gave their comments and overview before conducting the evaluations. From the firms that submitted a proposal, KPMG LLP stood out among all of the firms. They had a very strong financial background. HOK Sport, Inc. stood out as well, but there was a conflict of interest perception, because one of the individuals was involved in the Las Cruces Downtown project. The committee felt that this might possess a conflict of interest and would give the public the wrong perception. After discussing the user department's comments, John Tortelli read the evaluation scores. Selection Advisory Committee 2 November 19, 2004 APPROVED/4-21-05 The total final ratings were: CH Johnson Consulting, Inc. 2240 HOK Sport, Inc. 2145 HVS International 2170 KPMG LLP 2390 Strategic Advisory Group 2050 MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Christine Ochs seconded to have the user department negotiate a contract with the firm of KPMG LLP and take the recommendation forward to the City Council. If for some reason the user department is unable to negotiate with the top proposer, that they be allowed to contract negotiations with the second proposer of CH Johnson Consulting, Inc. if the first one falls through for any reason. Motion passed unanimously. Ken Mompellier, John Ricky, and Joe Martinez left the committee at this time. 6. Review RFP for the Proposed Children's Wing at the Thomas Branigan Memorial Library. Lori Grumet and Tomas Mendez joined the committee as the user department. The user department gave their overall comments and background regarding the �r proposal. Victor Villarreal joined the committee at 10:30 a.m. to replace Christine Ochs who left at this time. The committee went through the proposal page by page. PAGE 1 There was a question on whether to state the $209,000 appropriation in the Background Information section. Tomas didn't have a problem with this concern. Brian stated that if the user department doesn't have a problem with this, he doesn't either. The consensus of the committee was to leave the $209,000 as stated in the proposal. PAGE 2 No Changes PAGE 3 In Paragraph D, the word "library" will be replaced by the word"City". PAGE 4 There was a concern on the grammar usage in Paragraph D under General Instructions. The committee didn't like the wording of"in responsible charge". It was a legal sentence, and there was a consensus among the committee to leave it as stated. Selection Advisory Committee 3 November 19, 2004 APPROVED/4-21-05 PAGE 5 The evaluation criteria will be replaced by the standard SAC criteria. The percentages will remain the same as presented. PAGE 6 Cost will be used as a factor. The standard advertising time of four weeks will be used. PAGE 7 No Changes. PAGE 8 AND 9 Cost Matrix One and Cost Matrix Two did not have any changes. Lori Grumet and Tomas Mendez left the committee at this time. 7. Review MVRDA RFP for Study and Design of County Wide Interoperable Voice and Data Communication System. Mike Maier, Ken Luchini, Andrew Bencomo, Ed Jacquez, and Albert Flores joined the committee as the user department. PAGE 1 A grant letter came from the State of New Mexico for $125,000. There is no matching list of the amount of the grant. John indicated that the committee would review the proposal on an assumption that federal money doesn't apply. The radio system has to cover more than data. In the Overview paragraph, the last sentence in Paragraph A, the words "as much of the populated urban areas and populated rural areas of and"as economically feasible" were deleted. The last part of the sentence will read, "...develop a Data Communications System to cover Dona Ana County." In the Overview paragraph, Paragraph E, the word"should"needs to be replaced with"shall". PAGE 2 No changes. PAGE 3 In Paragraph C and Paragraph 1, the word "conceptual" will be deleted. cr Brian said that tower ordinances, regulations, and zoning issues need to be reviewed. There might be some deviation from the rules. This needs to be added somewhere in the proposal regarding the system design. These are big impacts. Selection Advisory Committee 4 November 19, 2004 APPROVED/4-21-05 PAGE 4 In Paragraph D, the words "procurement of the"will be deleted as well as the word "Procurement". In Paragraph 1, the word "Assistance in"will also be deleted and the word"procurement" in Paragraph 1 will be replaced by the word "equipment". In the Summary paragraphs, in the third paragraph, the word"phased" will be inserted in between the words, "...for the phased implementation..." PAGE 5 The word "it" in Paragraph 2 will be deleted. PAGE 6 In Paragraph 3, the sentence will be changed to read, "Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of five prior clients in the past three years with similar MA/COM Radio Systems, and the name of a contact person for each client." In the Costs Paragraph, Paragraph 1, the contract administrator will need to be identified in the contract. PAGE 7 The Evaluation Criteria was changed to the standard SAC criteria. The committee also stated that it needs to be spelled out in the proposal content that references be given of working with clients that have MA/COM Radio. Mike Maier will do the reference checks. The standard SAC verbiage will also be used in the proposal section regarding Schedule B. The Evaluation Criteria proposed with the weights is as follows: 1. Technical approach to the project. 30% 2. Qualifications/competence of project team members to perform services required by the project. 20% 3. Capacity and capability of the firm to perform the project, and to do so in a timely manner. 15% 4. Management structure and approach to the project including detailed timeline, task breakdowns and assignments. 10% 5. Performance of the firm with previous clients on similar projects, based upon quality of the work, control of costs, ability to meet schedules and responsiveness to the client. 20% 6. Clarity of proposal. 5% PAGE 8 It was suggested that a proposed contract be included as a submission. Selection Advisory Committee 5 November 19, 2004 APPROVED/4-21-05 A PMRC (Purchasing Manager Request to Contract) will be taken to the MVRDA Board for clarification. PAGES 9-12 Exhibit A, Qualification Form, will be deleted. If a statement is in the Qualification Form that is not in the proposal, it was the consensus of the committee to add it to the proposal content. This proposal does not have to come back to the Selection Advisory Committee. Mike Maier, Ken Luchini, Andrew Bencomo, Ed Jacquez, and Albert Flores left the committee at this time. 8. Other Items of Interest-Next SAC Meeting-December 2, 2004-City Hall-9:15 a.m. to 12 Noon. The SAC Meeting for December 2, 2004 was rescheduled to Thursday, December 16 from 9:15 a.m. to 12 Noon. 9. Other Items of Interest There were no other items of interest. 10. Adjourn. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and David Maestas seconded to adjourn. Meeting ended at 12:40 p.m. t f Selection Advisory Committee 6 November 19, 2004 k Integrated Municipal ERP Software System Pre-Proposal Meeting City Hall Council Chambers November 5,2004 STAFF ATTENDING: Mike Maier, Al Banegas, Sue Minton, John Tortelli, and Nora Jones PROPOSERS ATTENDING: I Question: What is the priority of the phases, and the implementation of the modules? Response: Accounting and the General Ledger will be first followed by Payroll, Purchasing, Fleet, and Permits. Utility Billing will be last. Question: What consists of Utility Billing? Response: Water, Wastewater, Refuse, and Gas Question: When does the Fiscal Year start? Response: The fiscal year begins on July 1, 2004. Question: Is the current vendor on their last leg? see taking Q g Do you g one Year for full implementation? What is the hard date? Response: There is no hard date. Fleet and permitting will be done first. k Question: When will you implement client phasing? After everything is up? Response: All e-government will come after the fact—permitting will be done first. E-government will be last. Question: Are you looking at mobile computing? For example, meters,permit, inspections, work orders, and code enforcement. Response: Yes, we are looking at this. Question: How many presentations have you seen? Response: We have seen at least 12 presentations. (JOHN WILL LIST ALL THE NAMES HERE) Question: What about P Series? t AVrN Response: We will provide the model number and serial number. Question: Do you have a preference on the operating system? Response: The preference is a Unix environment. Question: Are you open-minded on having a migration? Response: This is acceptable. We will be looking at that. Question: Can one firm offer two proposals? Response: Yes, a primary and a secondary proposal. Question: Do you have a preference with the client server? Response: Yes. Question: How much of the internal services will be available? Response: The Information Technology Department staff will be totally committed. This will start around mid-January. There will be three full-time employees from the Information Technology Department. Question: Are all your resources committed to this project? t. Response: There is a strong project manager. The majority of staff know how badly we need a new system. Question: Will the historical data be accessible in the new system? Response: We will convert all of that data into a new system. We will need togo back five years especially for the utility billing. Question: Will the additional expense be minimal? Response: Yes. Question: Will you be redesigning the chart of accounts? Modify them? Response: We will stay within the parameters that we do for the chart of accounts, but we can't say that we won't modify these. Accounting will be very receptive. There was a detailed description of the accounting structure by David Casillas, Budget Director. Integrated Municipal ERP Software System 2 E x His preference is to: • Preferably keep the current structure. • Use enough digits to characterize this. • Have a relationship between the table of chart of accounts to the utility accounts. • Fund code is tricky. • The six digit accounts need to relate back to the funds. • It is important to have at least six digits in the Account Code that relates back to the funding codes. David will provide a copy of the hierarchy of accounts and this will be sent out as an addendum. 3 Question: What are the transaction levels? Response: Payroll issues out about 30,000 checks per year. Question: On the functionality, are you looking at centralized or decentralized? Response: We want the option to go either way. The receiving will be decentralized. Question: On the financial, what is the non-closure? Response: (JOHN WILL MEET WITH LEGAL TO FIND OUT THE DISCLOSURE LAWS OF NEW MEXICO) Question: What is the start date of the project from the decision date? Response: Contract negotiations will begin in December. The kick-off will be in March 2005. Question: What will be the timeframe for the first phase? Response: It will depend on the Accounting Department. This is difficult to address until we get there. (MIKE WILL ASK MARK SUTTER REGARDING THIS QUESTION) Question: Do you want us to provide training? k Response: The training will be done on site. A computer lab will be set up. At first, the vendor will provide the training. The Information Technology Department will take over and provide the training. There will be about three to four sessions of training. Question: What will be the timeframe for support? This is for the database, support, etc. Response: Coverage will be 24-7 permanently, Integrated Municipal ERP Software System 3 Arm% Question: Will the directors be involved in the evaluation of the proposals? Response: The stakeholders will have the vote. There are about 25-30 people that will review the proposals. The directors didn't attend any of the presentations. 1 Integrated Municipal ERP Software System 4