Loading...
05-20-2004 • ® Approved 6/17/2004 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING LAS CRUCES,NM A Selection Advisory Committee meeting was held on Thursday, May 20, 2004, in the Facilities Conference Room, 1501 E. Hadley, Las Cruces. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Sutter, Chairperson, Financial Services Robert Garza, Public Works Klaus Kemmer for Jorge Garcia, Utilities Theresa Cook for Christine Ochs, Facilities Brian Denmark, Community Development OTHERS PRESENT: John Tortelli, Purchasing Nora Silva-Jones, Purchasing Richard Sanchez, Purchasing Pam Davis, Purchasing Cathy Mathews, Community Development Victor Villarreal, Community Development Heather Pollard, Las Cruces Downtown Susan Lowell, Las Cruces Downtown 1. Call Meeting to Order. Robert Garza chaired the meeting, and he called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Mark Sutter was not in attendance at this time. 2. Approve Minutes of April 16, 2004 Meeting. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Theresa Cook seconded to approve the minutes as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Review Landscape and Irrigation Design Service for North Las Cruces Neighborhood Park Request for Proposals. Cathy Mathews and Victor Villarreal joined the committee. Cathy informed the committee that an individual by the name of Mr. Zac Baldwin approached her and Ted Novack about donating a park to the City where the City would take a piece of property and improve it with park elements, i.e., sports fields, picnic shelters, and a basketball court. He wants to make a donation to the City by soliciting donations from other businesses and volunteer labor to install parks facilities at a location that is agreed upon with the City. The City would also contribute to the building of the park including play equipment, irrigation system, lighting, bleachers, and possibly assisting with installing a concrete basketball court. Brian brought up three issues regarding the proposal. 1) It can be broken up in phases where a consultant may be used to come up with those three designs, and / r go out to the neighborhoods and narrow it down to once concept. The second phase would be the design itself. 2) The neighborhood might be something that Selection Advisory Committee 1 May 20,2004 ® Approved 6/17/2004 they want or something that they don't want. 3) Mr. Baldwin is not contributing more than 50 percent of the cost associated with this. PAGE 1 No changes. This is the cover page. PAGE 2 In the Introduction section, the committee asked Cathy Mathews to verify whether a topography map is available. In the fourth paragraph in the Introduction section, the word"total"will be inserted before the word"construction", and the word "approximately"will be changed to "projected to be". The design is wanted relatively quickly. The committee suggested taking the date out and going out with duration. PAGE 3 In Paragraph 1, the City will approve the concept. Each concept will have a construction phase. In Paragraph 2, the design standards need to be elaborated. There needs to be an indication as to where the available funding will be acquired. It has to comply with ADA requirements. In Paragraph B, both a licensed architect and a licensed engineer are required. In the proposal, the City needs to designate the City Project Manager. PAGE 4 In the proposal content, Paragraph b, the sentence will have an addition that will read, "and a New Mexico license number." In the proposal content, Paragraph d, the word"similar"will be added. In the proposal content, Paragraph e, the time period for previous client's projects will be added in this paragraph. The projects need to go back five years. At this time, Mark Sutter joined the committee (1:55 p.m.). Robertcontinued chairing the meeting. PAGE 5 In the last paragraph on Page 5, Paragraph D, the acronyms (PS&E) need to be spelled out to read, "Plans, Specifications, and Estimates". PAGE 6 In the Evaluation Criteria, the weights were modified as follows: Selection Advisory Committee 2 May 20,2004 Approved 6/17/2004 2. Qualifications/competence of project team members to perform services �r required by this project. 25% 4. Management structure and approach to the project. 5% PAGE 7 Cost will be used in the post evaluation. John Tortelli will add the standard verbiage regarding interviews. The proposal will be advertised for the standard four weeks. This proposal will not be coming back to SAC. John will need to be provided with two more user names to sit in on the SAC. 4. Review Professional Marketing Services Request for Proposals. Heather Pollard, Executive Director of Las Cruces Downtown and Susan Lowell, Assistant Executive Director of Las Cruces Downtown,joined the committee as the user group. City staff-- Cathy Mathews and Victor Villarreal from Community Development,joined them. Klaus Kemmer stated that Jorge couldn't attend the meeting, because he was attending a Rio Grande Board Meeting. Cost will not be a factor. This proposal is qualifications-based, meaning there will be no cost. The standard SAC procedures will be used on this proposal. Robert Garza suggested incorporating a paragraph in the proposal that says, "We are requesting cost proposals for each of the phases that have been identified. We want to know the hourly rate,the estimated number of hours, and submit this in a cost proposal. Cost will not be a factor, and will not be used for evaluation purposes, but it will be referred to for purposes of negotiating a contract after the successful person is chosen." Then the committee will go through the qualifications based process. John asked the user department to make sure whether federal money will be used or not used, because if so, a federal clause needs to be included in the RFP. PAGE 1 In the Introduction section,the committee suggested adding the population of the entire Dona Ana County, 180,000 population, instead of using the population of the City itself. Mention that the City is a Sports City as illustrated in the Sports Illustrated Magazine and use other marketing news as well. In the Introduction section, the third paragraph, the word"failing" needs to be deleted. Selection Advisory Committee 3 May 20,2004 ® Approved 6/17/2004 PAGE 2 Robert suggested to include a sentence in the contract such as, "not to exceed on this contract by(dollar amount)..." and then amend the budget accordingly. Tell them how much budget is available for their information to provide this service. In the Scope of Services, all of the phases could be associated with hourly rates. If hourly rates are used, the number of hours needs to be estimated, and then all of the hours will be totaled. According to Heather Pollard, Phase I—Needs Assessment—won't take too long, because this has already been going on for three weeks. Paragraph B, Phase II, needs to be rewritten. We just want professional services right now. Paragraph C, Phase II was deleted. Since Paragraph C was deleted, Phase IV will be Paragraph C, and a Paragraph D will be added to be "Other Items As Needed"—not including materials. Do not include materials, so it comes back to professional services. We are not buying fW the product; we are just buying the professional services. There will be three options for this proposal. According to John Tortelli, we can piggyback on a City project, State, or go out to bid. Mark explained to Heather Pollard and Susan Lowell how the local preference is used for the proposal, because they were concerned about someone outside New Mexico proposing who had no idea of the City's history and might propose something outside the City's culture. PAGE 3 The portfolio material will consist of one set, 8 %2 x 11, and this will be available in the Purchasing Department. The page limitation will be 15 pages long. In the Technical Proposal Content, Paragraph D, after the words "past contracts" the words "of the last 3-5 years"will be added. The word "firm"will be changed to the word"proposer"throughout the document. There was a very lengthy discussion on cost. In the Cost Proposal Content, Paragraphs A-D were taken straight out of the standard RFP format. The committee suggested having a unit price per hour and associate man-hours. Selection Advisory Committee 4 May 20,2004 Approved 6/17/2004 tW Expect proposer to map out a strategy and key tasks that need to be accomplished. An hourly costly method will possibly be used. PAGE 4 Cost will not be used as a factor; therefore, a motion is required. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Brian Denmark seconded to remove cost as a factor and the evaluation process. The evaluation criteria was changed as follows: 1. Quality of portfolio and technical capabilities. 30% 2. Ability to deliver required services. 25% 3. Professional qualifications of assigned personnel. 25% 4. Previous experience of similar projects. 15% 5. Clarity of proposal 5% TOTAL 100% Since the evaluation criteria were changed from the standard SAC criteria, a motion was made. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Robert Garza seconded to approve the changes to the evaluation criteria. Motion passed. John Tortelli will need to change the paragraph under the evaluation criteria where it states that"SAC will use the evaluation and post-evaluation procedure described in attached Schedule B"because cost will not be a factor. The user department will need to make a list of deliverables and include these in the proposal. The City will own the deliverables—anything that is produced by the proposer. PAGE 5 A pre-proposal conference will not be held. Regarding the last paragraph of the proposal where it states direct contact with City staff other than the Purchasing Department will render the proposal non- compliant was changed to read, "NOTE: DIRECT CONTACT REGARDING THIS RFP WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS OR CITY STAFF, APPOINTED SAC MEMBERS, OTHER THAN PURCHASING STAFF, WILL RENDER THE PROPOSAL NON-COMPLIANT. This proposal will be advertised for four weeks. This is the SAC standard. It will be advertised in Albuquerque, El Paso, Las Cruces, and Bid Net. Heather Pollard will provide a list of firms to Purchasing so that the proposal will be sent to them as well. Selection Advisory Committee 5 May 20,2004 Approved 6/17/2004 S. Other Items of Interest. The next SAC meeting will be held on Thursday, June 17 at 9:15 a.m. Robert proposed to discuss and have the committee make a decision on a proposal review philosophy. He stated that the committee would need to discuss only the "Big Stuff'at the meetings. Another recommendation that Robert proposed is that the proposal users attend the SAC meetings. This way, they will have a better understanding of the proposal when it comes to them to do the evaluation. 6. Adjourn. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Klaus Kemmer seconded to adjourn the meeting. Meeting ended at 3:40 p.m. Selection Advisory Committee 6 May 20,2004