Loading...
06-17-2004 ® Approved July 22, 2004 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING LAS CRUCES,NM A Selection Advisory Committee meeting was held on Thursday, June 17, 2004, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 N. Church Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Sutter, Chairperson, Financial Services Robert Garza, Public Works Jorge Garcia, Utilities Christine Ochs, Facilities Brian Denmark, Community Development OTHERS PRESENT: John Tortelli, Purchasing Nora Silva-Jones, Purchasing Pam Davis, Purchasing Richard Sanchez, Purchasing Terri Del Ferraro, Purchasing Andrew Bencomo, Fire Mike Norton, Fire John Johnson, Southwest Ambulance Gilbert Morales, Utilities Desmond Marzett, Public Services Suzanne Jeffers, Las Cruces Public Schools Santiago Soto,New Mexico Commissions Status of Women/Teamworks Duane Goode, Legal Tony Aguirre, Public Works Robert Ebler, Public Works Jerry Cordova, Public Works 1. Call Meeting to Order. Mark Sutter called the meeting to order at 9:17 a.m. 2. Approve Minutes of May 20, 2004 Meeting. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Jorge Garcia seconded to approve the minutes as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Evaluate Regional EMS Medical Director Request for Proposals. Andrew Bencomo and Mike Norton joined the committee as the user department and John Johnson from Southwest Ambulance joined the committee as well. Mark stated that the recommendation from SAC would go to the MVRDA Board. Mark asked the user department to think about the wording for our recommendation to them. Robert said that we would recommend that the user department negotiate an actual contract and present it to the MVRDA Board for final approval. Selection Advisory Committee 1 June 17,2004 Approved July 22, 2004 Mark said that what we need to do is have John and a few of the user groups negotiate with Mountain View Regional Medical Center for a contract price that is segregated by the amount allocable to the ambulance company and may also have the breakdowns for the County and the City. There has to be a distinction between the costs that are allocable to MVRDA and the governmental agencies and the amount that will be allocable to the company. This needs to be specified by Mountain View Medical Center. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Brian Denmark seconded that we direct the user department and our Purchasing Manager to negotiate the contract with Mountain View Regional to produce a specific lump sum cost for this service for one year with an option to renew. The recommendation for the contract will be presented to the MVRDA Board for final acceptance. If it is less than $50,000, and if the resolution that they have covers that, then they should proceed with the contract. A signature is required by the MVRDA Director if it is less than $50,000. The cost for the ambulance company needs to be broken out. There has to be a billing from MVRDA to the ambulance company. Mark stated that if the amount that is allocable to the ambulance company were unacceptable, the ambulance company would still be able to contract with the other entities for a medical director for the ambulance company. It has to be made clear that the amount that is allocable to the ambulance service is the amount that is going to be billed to them, and they will have to agree with that. John Johnson stated that it is imperative that we get a medical director. We can contract on a month-to-month basis. To move this process along, Mr. Johnson would be more than happy to contract individually. AMENDED MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Brian Denmark seconded to amend the motion to include a provision that the MVRDA Board needs to address the issue of the share paid by the ambulance company so that the anti-donation issues are not involved. The Purchasing Manager did not read out the evaluation scores and totals for Mountain View Regional Hospital. Andrew Bencomo, Mike Norton, and John Johnson left the committee at this time. 4. Evaluate BMX Track Operator Request for Proposals. Jorge Garcia left the committee at this time and Gilbert Morales joined the committee taking Jorge's place. Desmond Marzett joined the committee as the user department. Suzanne Jeffers and Santiago Soto also joined the committee. They are both track parents. Selection Advisory Committee 2 June 17,2004 Approved July 22, 2004 John Tortelli stated that he did not receive final authorization from the City Manager for one of the evaluators—Suzanne Jeffers. She got appointed at the last minute. Mark stated since the committee does not have that approval, she would participate as a non-voting member. As a parent, Suzanne Jeffers gave a good recommendation about Mr. Tafoya. Mr. Tafoya is the owner of Southwest Youth Sports. The committee asked Duane Goode, who was in the audience, about the liability issue. Duane stated that they cover themselves, and they put us as an additional insured. He also said that we need to have a general liability contract. The subtotal score before throwing out the high and low scores was: Southwest Youth Sports 2495 After the high and low scores were thrown out,the score was: Southwest Youth Sports 1695 There were no jobs in progress. The proposer submitted a cash flow projection. Robert stated that this is a situation where the vendor cost is a cash flow projection. (, MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Brian Denmark seconded to authorize the user department to negotiate a contract with Mr. Tafoya for operation of the BMX Track and for the contract to specifically address insurance provisions and bring the contract forward for recommendation for City Council consideration. Motion passed unanimously. Desmond Marzett, Suzanne Jeffers, and Santiago Soto left the committee at this time. 5. Evaluate Actuarial Services Request for Proposals. Duane Goode joined the committee as the user department. The subtotal ratings prior to throwing out the high and the low scores were: ARM Tech 2275 Pinnacle Actuarial Resources 2190 After the high and low scores were thrown out,the subtotal scores were: ARM Tech 1620 Pinnacle Actuarial Resources 1555 The cost proposals were: ARM Tech $8,000.00 Pinnacle Actuarial Resources $11,500.00 Selection Advisory Committee 3 June 17,2004 • Approved July 22, 2004 The cost ratio points were: ARM Tech 324 Pinnacle 216 The total final rating was: ARM Tech 1944 Pinnacle Actuarial Resources 1771 MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Brian Denmark seconded to have the user department negotiate a contract with ARM for Actuarial Services and take this contract to the City Council for consideration. Mark stated that the amount is only$8,000, so this doesn't have to go to the City Council for approval. AMENDED MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Brian Denmark seconded to negotiate a contract and bring it forward for approval by the City Manager. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Review Final Design and Surveying Services for the Reconstruction of Reynolds Drive Request for Proposal. Tony Aguirre, Robert Ebler, and Jerry Cordova joined the committee as the user department. Mark Sutter did not have a chance to read the proposal, so he turned the meeting over to Robert Garza to chair, and Mark left the meeting to attend the Rio Grande work session. Robert said that they unexpectedly received funding for design and construction work, and this is why it is on the agenda today. Robert stated that the condition of the grant fund has to be encumbered by a construction contractor by December 31 just for the design. Then we advertise it again for bids for construction. PAGE 1 Brian suggested that in the Introduction paragraph, we need to explain more than what is already there, and Robert suggested adding that the project will be funded by severance tax bonds provided by the New Mexico Department of Transportation, and that this project must be developed in accordance with their requirements and regulations. Robert suggested adding a comment upfront that says that Reynolds is on the East Mesa where drainage impacts to ...(unclear)problems over the past several years, and the consultant will have to explore solutions to those issues. fW Selection Advisory Committee 4 June 17,2004 Approved July 22, 2004 PAGE 2 Brian stated that outside City people wouldn't know what Minor Local 2 means. A suggestion would be to describe the typical section. The first sentence in Paragraph B will be changed to read, "This project shall be bid in two phases over the course of two fiscal years. The first phase..." PAGE 3 In the Scope of Services, in the surveying paragraph, the user department needs to elaborate on what they mean by"staking". Robert suggested including deliverables such as surveys on file, etc. PAGE 4 Brian asked the user department to define what plans are required, and then reference or attach an addendum. There are mixing issues in the construction plans section. Paragraph 12 will be deleted. The last paragraph on Page 4 that also continues on top of Page 5 was deleted. PAGE 5 to The rest of the page looked fine. PAGE 6 In Paragraph D, all paragraphs will be deleted up to Paragraph 2, Drainage Study and Design. The committee suggested to have the City do this under our own separate contract. The City will do the environmental work. The City will expect the contractor to do all designs. They will be accountable for this. PAGE 7 As stated, all paragraphs will be deleted under Paragraph D, except for Paragraph 2, Drainage Study and Design. PAGE 8 Under Paragraph E, all paragraphs up to Paragraph 5, Final Plans, will be deleted. In the paragraph Final Plans, name Final Plans for Phase 1 and Final Plans for Phase 2 and describe each of those. Robert stated that to expedite the work, we could have them do 50 percent on corridor and then shift and do final plans on Phase 1. A timeframe should be done for the Phase 1 construction so there will be more time to do the final plans for Phase 2. Preliminary design would be 50 percent, and then final plans at 95 percent. We'll need a recommendation from them on Phase 1 as opposed to us dictating it to them. Paragraphs 1 through 4 would be amended as discussed. Selection Advisory Committee 5 June 17,2004 ® Approved July 22, 2004 Consultants need to be selected no later than the end of July. The SAC needs to review, evaluate, and make a recommendation, so they can start a Council Action Form for the first meeting in August. There has to be a SAC meeting before the end of July. Robert suggested a way to speed up the process is to have them separate the final design, and let them focus on Phase 1. What might help them also is to complete 33 percent of the preliminary design instead of 50 percent when they have their survey done, and they'll know what is out there. They'll have the right-of-ways. PAGE 9 In Paragraph F, identify the meetings. This paragraph needs to be expanded and clarified. In Paragraph G, Schedule of Services needs to be broken down for Phase 1 and Phase 2. PAGE 10 The word"five" will be changed to "three" in Paragraph F. Cost will be used as a factor. The cost is needed for the preliminary and final design for each phase. We need a cost for those three numbers—so that when we negotiate the contract, we can show that—if 80 percent of the work is in the preliminary design, and bill us for 80 percent of the work. They will be evaluated for total cost, but with cost breakdowns. Robert said the proposal needs to say that the basis for selection will be the total cost for all services selected. A paragraph can be added on construction, on-call, and inspection services. The proposer can then give us a price. Robert said we give them a final payment when Phase 1 is approved, and then we will give them another final payment when Phase 2 is approved. Robert stated that the SAC rules say that cost should be a factor. He said that the SAC rules are written where we have a two-step process where you do qualifications based selection first and only those that are within 10 percent of the highest ranked firm, their costs will be considered. The SAC rules were written specifically for engineering services contracts. Robert said because of the urgency of moving this one along, he would prefer to stick to the prescribed guideline rules. In the Cost Proposal paragraph, the first sentence will be changed to "The cost proposal will be used in the evaluation of the RFP." Selection Advisory Committee 6 June 17,2004 Approved July 22, 2004 PAGE 11 The weights were changed and distributed as follows: 1. Technical Approach 15% 2. Qualifications/competence of... 25% 3. Capacity and capability... 35% 4. Management structure... 15% 5. Performance of the firm with... 5% 6. Clarity of proposal. 5% MOTION: Christine Ochs moved and Brian Denmark seconded to change the weights on the evaluation criteria. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Christine Ochs seconded to authorize the user department to reduce the advertisement time from four weeks to 2-3 weeks. Motion passed unanimously. For the record, the user department is in a big hurry, and when a closing date is chosen, then a special SAC meeting will be scheduled. John stated that if they want the RFP advertised one week from this Sunday, the RFP needs to be at Purchasing by Monday, June 21 so it can be reviewed and meet the cutoff date which is Wednesday, June 23. A memo from the using department needs to go to John Tortelli informing him who the appointees will be on the evaluation for this proposal. The names of the appointees will be Robert Ebler and Jerry Cordova. In Paragraph B, Paragraph 1, the sentence will be changed to read, "SAC will use the evaluation procedure described in Schedule B." John suggested including a disclaimer in Paragraph C that the City may or may not hold interviews. 7. Other Items of Interest. The next SAC meeting will be held on July 8, 2004 in the City Council Chambers at 9:15 a.m. The Airport proposal will be on the agenda. 8. Adjourn. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Christine Ochs seconded to adjourn. Meeting ended at 11:30 a.m. Selection Advisory Committee 7 June 17,2004