Loading...
03-04-2004 Approved 4-16-04 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING LAS CRUCES,NM A Selection Advisory Committee meeting was held on Thursday, March 4, 2004, in the City Council Chambers, 200 N. Church Street, Las Cruces,NM. 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 Richard Sanchez, Purchasing -- - Adolf Zubia, Fire & Emergency Gregg Bright, Fire & Emergency Michael Norton, Dona Ana County Fire Sam Palm, MVRDA Desmond Marzett, Public Services Audrey Evins, Administration Kelly Sweetser, Administration David Nunez, Financial Services Pat Degman, Financial Services Robert Romano, Financial Services 1. Call Meeting to Order. Mark Sutter called the meeting to order at 9:23 a.m. 2. Approve Minutes of January 22, 2004 Meeting. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Jorge Garcia seconded to approve the minutes as presented. There was one minor correction. On Page 4, third paragraph, the word"have" needs to be inserted after the word"will". Mark asked for the vote on the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Approve Minutes of February 12, 2004 Meeting. MOTION: Jorge Garcia moved and Brian Denmark seconded to approve the minutes as presented. There were some minor corrections. On Page 3, second paragraph, the word"changes"needs to be inserted after the word"make". Selection Advisory Committee 1 March 4,2004 Approved 4-16-04 On Page 4, seventh paragraph, an additional sentence needs to be added that (W reads, "The committee concurred that public participation be allowed at the meeting." On Page 5, first paragraph, the word "Brooks"needs to be inserted after the words, "follows the". On Page 5, sixth paragraph, Robert Garza's name needs to be inserted as leaving the meeting along with the other individuals. Mark asked for the vote on the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Review Medical Director Services Request for Proposals. Gregg Bright, Michael Norton, Adolf Zubia, and Sam Palm joined the committee as the user department. Gregg Bright gave the committee some background information. They are trying to get one medical director for the entire Dona Ana County. All the emergency responders in the County area are working under the same protocol and under the same medical direction. This will improve the quality of patient care, continuity of care, and help with turnover. They want someone in place by June 2004. Robert questioned why cost is not a factor, and how are we going to be assessing these proposers. Gregg explained that they ruled out cost as a factor, because all costs afterwards are negotiable. We need someone that will be an active medical director that will be good for the system and for the entire area versus somebody that may be the lowest bidder and sit back and do nothing. Adolf said it is critically based on how medical directions are currently provided through the different entities that will be participating. Robert said we have a qualifications based selection process in place where we wouldn't even look at cost even if it was a factor unless the proposer(s) are within 10 percent of the highest ranked firm. Robert stated that on Page 6, it clearly states that cost will not be used in the evaluation. Anybody within 10 percent of that highest ranked firm can be considered, and then we open cost proposals, but only for those firms within 10 percent of the highest ranked firm can be considered. There is an adjustment to the score based on what cost proposal is submitted. Cost does impact it, but it is not part of the criteria to get to the top 10 percent. Gregg said that is what they intended, and if that is already in place, then we (W should follow the regular SAC rules. This will address their concerns. Selection Advisory Committee 2 March 4,2004 Approved 4-16-04 Local preference and existing business need to be addressed as well. Both of (W these will be eliminated. Adolf said it is critical that the person be accessible and have a local office in this area. The area can be anywhere in Dona Ana County. They don't necessarily have to be from Dona Ana County, but they have to be a licensed practitioner in the State of New Mexico. This is mentioned on Page 6, letter d. John suggested that if the proposer being awarded this contract will have to have an office in Dona Ana County, they can put this as part of their cost proposal. Gregg said they don't want to limit it to just positions and entities in Dona Ana County or people that are necessarily medical directors that are in the area now. We want to expand it to anyone that is willing to do this. Adolf said that there would be a significant number of meetings that the Medical Director will have to attend to successfully comply with the contract. John said we could address that after the award, because we can do it as part of the contract negotiations, and if they were not going to meet the staffing requirements as required by all the entities, then we would go to the next proposer. As part of the proposal, we need to indicate that they must have an office in Dona Ana County and put in language that they need to be available from this time to this time. (W Gregg said that the Medical Director will be a full-time job, but they would still have a practice and would delegate a lot of this to their staff. One single person won't be able to do this job. Gregg said this would be a 36-50 hours per week job. This is why they would like to have a pre-proposal conference to let them understand what is required. Brian suggested adding an explanation in general terms the workload and the service area in the Introduction section. Robert suggested adding a Paragraph C in the Introduction section that says, "The successful proposer will have to open and/or staff an office in Dona Ana County for the purposes of performing these services." Robert suggested that on Page 7 where the proposal talks about post evaluation procedures, we need to say that local preference will not be used. Robert suggested that within Exhibit 2, which is the proposed draft contract, under Article 2, a 2.6 needs to be added that will read, "The Contractor shall have an office in Dona Ana County." After general comments were made, the committee then went through the proposal page by page. Selection Advisory Committee 3 March 4,2004 Approved 4-16-04 PAGE 1 (W Robert suggested changing the title of the proposal to "City of Las Cruces on Behalf of the Mesilla Valley Regional Dispatch Authority Request for Proposals for a Regional EMS Medical Director." Mark suggested moving the words "herein after referred to as `City' needs to be moved and inserted after the words "The City of Las Cruces" in the Overview section. John asked whether we need to specify that we are the fiscal agent for these people in the proposal. In the Introduction section, Paragraph B, the sentence that reads, "An example is attached for general reference (Exhibit 2)"will be deleted. In the Scope of Services, Brian suggested having two separate sections for qualifications and services. These are mixed in the Scope of Services. On Page 5, in the Specific Instructions, some of the instructions need to be moved to Scope of Services under the services and qualifications. Mark asked whether it needs to be spelled out in this proposal that the EMS transport agency may or may not be a party of the authority of this director. (W Gregg said that every entity involved, including City Fire, can choose not to participate at the end, but all entities involved are going to participate. The cost will be distributed among the entities. Adolf stated that the current fees that are being provided for this service by the entities that are participating are about$60,000. Each entity currently pays a separate Medical Director a given amount of money. Consolidating that one Medical Director should be less expensive than what we currently pay individually, because that one Medical Director only has to have one staff versus each individual Medical Director having their own staff. Adolf suggested when proposals are submitted, each entity would be responsible for 50 percent each. If any of their applications were to discontinue,the total cost of their proposal would be reduced by that much. For example, the City could be 20 percent,the County 20 percent, MVRDA 5 percent, the other entities slightly less. John said we can put language in the contract indicating if one of our members pulls out of this contract, we have the right to renegotiate based on the percentage of their support towards this. Adolf said we could add this to the proposal and in the contract. Mark suggested that in your cost proposal, you might ask them to give you the (W breakdown of the cost by entity, and this lets them make the determination on how they would spread the cost, so if one or two pull out of the contract, they are still covering their cost. Selection Advisory Committee 4 March 4,2004 Approved 4-16-04 (W MVRDA would sign their own contract, and then MVRDA can be the agent for the funding. Mark reiterated that this will be a contract between MVRDA and the Medical Services Director and that the relationship of all of these other entities is actually between each of them and MVRDA as far as the funding. MVRDA would be contracting and how we split up the costs is a MVRDA Board issue and getting the participating agencies to sign through a JPA. Robert suggested in the Introduction section, Paragraph A, to clarify what Mark suggested that the agreement mentioned in Exhibit 2 or in this section is a contract between MVRDA and the provider. The City is the fiscal agent and that is why it is being submitted to the City. Mark also suggested naming the parties that are involved in the Overview section. PAGE 2 The Residency paragraph will be deleted. PAGE 3 No changes. (, PAGE 4 In the Statewide Participation paragraph, Robert suggested adding something that tells how often are the meetings and where are they. Is travel required? What does 75%represent? The number of meetings in one year or per month. The Medical Direction Committee is the reporting mechanism. PAGE 5 In the Specific Instructions section,the first sentence in Paragraph 8 will be deleted. Mark suggested adding a sentence that will read, "They are a member of and are expected to attend the MVRDA Medical Direction Committee meetings and report on their activities." You have to be specific on who they report to. PAGE 6 In the Technical Proposal Content, Paragraph c,the words "the firm"will be changed to "proposer". In the Technical Proposal Content, Paragraph g, the proposers will need to demonstrate their services provided with other entities. They will need to detail past experiences. In the Technical Proposal Content, Paragraphs g, h, and i need to be moved so they follow Paragraph b in that section. In the Technical Proposal Content, Paragraph i needs to be expanded, so it will be more specific. Selection Advisory Committee 5 March 4,2004 Approved 4-16-04 Mark commented that the contract is between MVRDA and the Medical Director. We do the evaluation and then we take the top 10 percent, open the cost proposals, do the background, and we get one good one. We will have MVRDA negotiate with that firm, and they come up with a total price, and then they will talk with the entities that are participating, and if one says that they don't want to do it, then they will have to go back and renegotiate. We would like a lump sum cost proposal. The contract can be extended up to three additional one-year periods. John said if you want four years out of it, we need to address insurance. Sam Palm said that you need to specify state protocols and insurance requirements. Either party can cancel the 30-day notice. Adolf said that there would be some entities that will want to jump on to this contract. Mark suggested that the other entities can be listed that may come on later. This way, when they give us the pricing, they would be pricing assuming that all of them would come on. It needs to be specified that they will have to put this in their bid. Gregg said that one of the things that they talked about as a committee the possibility i.e., Mesilla can't participate right now or isn't able to but in six months from now they want to. That would be up to them to go to the Medical Director and negotiate with that Medical Director and have their own private contract with him until that year is up or four years. Whatever the committee decides is best. That would be their responsibility if they want to be part of that. MVRDA bills them instead of going directly to the Medical Director on a private contract. Adolf said it is a new process. It is in our best interest to try it for one year and see how it works and have the option that Gregg suggested. There will be some contracts that will expire through that first year to see if they can work out something out in the interim and re-advertise it one year from now where you pick the four-year option and have a better picture of the participants. Robert said we could say it is a one-year contract with the option to renew for an additional year with the same terms. This will give you flexibility. PAGE 7 Based on the evaluation criteria, Brian asked if the approach is more important than the qualifications and competence. Selection Advisory Committee 6 March 4,2004 Approved 4-16-04 Gregg said that it was important to find out how they would do this, and if they are able to do this. MVRDA could do a pre-evaluation and give the results to the people doing the evaluations. John asked if we want to delegate the SAC evaluation to the MVRDA Medical Direction Committee to let them evaluate this for us and take their recommendation. Mark said we don't have the provision in the SAC rules to do this. Mark did recall that when we did evaluations of health insurance a few years ago, we had participation by a committee, and there were two evaluations done by the committee. The regular SAC representation and the user department and two that were the City Manager assignees who were actually two members from the Health Committee and together that committee provided input to the SAC. Robert said that the user department would meet with the MVRDA Committee and have them help you evaluate the proposals. You would then bring your one rating to the SAC. We'll do preliminary evaluations, and then we'll ask the user department what they have read and what the committee should be aware of that maybe we wouldn't otherwise know. The user would then give their comments and overview and the SAC would have the opportunity to change our scores (W based on the user department's input. Mark said there would be a person from MVRDA, and then two other people that the City Manager will appoint whomever MVRDA recommends. Adolf clarified that Sam Palm would be one user, and then we will have a representative from City Fire and two additional representatives. MVRDA is the user department, so there will be one person from MVRDA. There will be two others, but it is up to MVRDA however they want to work that out. Adolf said that the three individuals would be from City, County, and Southwest Ambulance. Mark asked Adolf to communicate to MVRDA to send John Tortelli the three individuals that you would like to serve from the City, County, and Ambulance. Mark said that the first paragraph on Page 7, a sentence needs to be added that will read"Section A of Part III needs to be excluded." John has a new provision for local preference. Robert said local preference would be waived. The committee will need to vote on bonuses and deductions not applying. Selection Advisory Committee 7 March 4,2004 Approved 4-16-04 MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Christine Ochs seconded to waive the bonuses and deductions section of the post evaluation procedure. Motion passed unanimously. The cost formula will still be used. John will provide the user department with the standard language for Paragraph B, because we are doing the post-evaluation process, which includes cost. Adolf suggested including a provision for the first evaluation criteria that asks how they are going to assure quality assurance. How are they going to clarify field performance? This can be spelled out in the Technical Proposal on Page 6 in Paragraph i. This can be expanded to be more specific. The evaluation criteria deviate from the standard SAC evaluation criteria so a vote is required. Number 4 from the standard criteria is missing from the evaluation that is presented and that is the Capacity and Capability. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Brian Denmark seconded to amend the criteria to match what the user department has outlined. Motion passed unanimously. The advertising time will be the standard four weeks. Gregg Bright, Michael Norton, Adolf Zubia, and Sam Palm left the committee at this time. S. Review Operations of Roadrunner BMX Track Request for Proposals. Desmond Marzett joined the committee as the user department. Cost will not be a factor. The committee went through the proposal page by page. PAGE 1 The word "firm"will be changed to "proposer"throughout the proposal. The last sentence in the Overview paragraph will be changed to read, "The City anticipates awarding the contract for this RFP approximately four days after City Council approval." Robert suggested that the operator should indicate the hours that they will open. Mark said that this could fit in the technical part of the proposal where we can ask them before the fee structure and for their operating schedule. In the Scope of Services, Paragraph B, Invoicing/Billing, will be deleted. Selection Advisory Committee 8 March 4,2004 Approved 4-16-04 PAGE 2 The first paragraph on top of Page 2 will name the specific things that the City will pay for, i.e., solid waste, electric, water, and sewer only. On top of Page 2, Paragraph 2, the sentence will be changed to read, "Notify contractor within one week unless it's an emergency of any impacts to their proposed schedule." On Page 2, in the Specific Instructions, Paragraph A, the sentence will be changed to read"Submit a monthly financial statement and summarized activity report showing funds and expenditures by category." In Paragraph D, in the Specific Instructions section, it has to be made clear that the contract will be terminated if training doesn't occur within 45 days. They will also have to provide certification. A certification will also be required for the CPR training person as well. The Recreation Program will need this certification within 30 days. In Paragraphs E, F, and G, a statement needs to be included that these requirements and submissions need to be in by June 30, 2004. In Paragraph H, it needs to indicate that the proposer will need to send the City an invoice for reimbursement. In Paragraph I, the word "whatever"will be replaced by"status and activity". PAGE 3 In Paragraph J, after the word"employees", the words"as required by law"will be added. In that same paragraph, the last sentence, the word"operator"will be added after"The BMX track". In Paragraph N, the words "for disciplinary action"will be added after the word "procedure". In Paragraph P, the words"league officials" will be changed to "track operator". Part of the last two sentences will be changed as follows, "...coaches and managers, and established policy rules..." In the Proposal Content, a proposed operating schedule will be provided. PAGE 4 In the Cost Proposal paragraph,the administrative fee, rate per rider and other costs mentioned, the City will need their proposed fee schedule for one year. Robert said that we would need a value statement in the evaluation criteria. We need to consider a cost, value, or fee structure. Selection Advisory Committee 9 March 4,2004 Approved 4-16-04 John stated that we don't have a cost proposal. It is all technical. The first paragraph in the Cost Proposal, Paragraph B, the word"may"will be changed to "shall". Robert suggested removing the word "project"throughout the proposal, because it is not a project but a service. John reiterated that we would add a proposed operating schedule. We will get rid of cost proposal, scratch administration fees, move rates per rider per event as proposed C Schedule and any types associated with performing this service or event. In Paragraph 3 on top of the page, the words "minimum of three"will be deleted. Robert suggested asking for previous references and not quantify. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Jorge Garcia seconded to eliminate the specification of three references since it deviates from the SAC rules. Motion passed unanimously. Mark reiterated that the cost proposal will be taken out and a Number 6 will be added for proposed fee structure for events and a proposed operating schedule to the list. Robert commented that one was the fee or value and the other one was an issue relating to their operating schedule. I think we should evaluate them based on the number of days of the year that they plan on having that open. If they will only open on weekends or Monday, Wednesday, Friday and weekends. We want the most service we can provide. We'll need the proposed operating schedule for one year January 1 through December 15. The evaluation was changed as follows. John suggested adding the proposed operating schedule criteria by itself. You can put points to it. Capacity and capability to operate track and snack bar. 30% Operating schedule and fee structure. 25% Management structure (i.e., operating a small business or managing a team, ABA (Ole experience). 20% Selection Advisory Committee 10 March 4,2004 Approved 4-16-04 Related Experience and References 20% Clarity of proposal 5% A motion was required since this evaluation criteria departs from the regular list that SAC uses. MOTION: Christine Ochs moved and Robert Garza seconded the evaluation criteria as presented instead of the regular SAC criteria. Motion passed unanimously. Paragraph B on top of Page 5 will need to be changed. All of Section II will be eliminated. In Schedule B, we will be eliminating the post evaluation procedure altogether(BIII). MOTION: Christine Ochs moved and Robert Garza seconded to eliminate the post evaluation procedures. Motion carried unanimously. Advertising will be the standard four weeks. Desmond Marzett left the committee at this time. 6. Review of Financial Services Request for Proposals. Pat Degman, David Nunez, Kelly Sweetser, Audrey Evins, and Robert Romano joined the committee as the user department. The committee went through the proposal page by page. PAGE 1 Some of the numbers in the second paragraph in the Background Information need to be corrected. Robert suggested changing the title to read"Consulting Services to Provide a Management Review of Financial Business Operations". In the first paragraph in the Background Information, a sentence needs to be included where it reads, "The City is also fiscal agent for RGNGA, SCSWA, METRO, MVRDA, and other small non-profits." PAGE 2 In the first paragraph, a sentence can be included that"approximately 80 special receivable accounts are accounted for using Quick Books." The word"currently" in the second paragraph will be deleted. Robert suggested moving the third paragraph on top of Page 2 as Number 4 in the Project Description section. Selection Advisory Committee 11 March 4,2004 Approved 4-16-04 PAGE 3 err In Paragraph E, Services to be Provided, the second sentence will be changed to read, "Indicate the services that you would provide to the City of Las Cruces..." PAGE 4 Robert stated that for clarification, this is going to be a lump sum cost proposal. The other thing is that it will be used in the post evaluation process. In the evaluation criteria,Number 5, the word"perform"will be changed to read, "performance". PAGE 5 In the Cancellation of RFP, the word"afterward"will be changed to "after the award". In the Submission paragraph,the room number in the address for hand delivery is Room 1. The last paragraph on Page 5, will be deleted. PAGE 6 In the Proposal Format, the second to the last sentence, the word"outlines"will be changed to "outlined". Robert suggested sticking to the SAC rules and leave it alone. Cost will be used as a factor. The proposal will be advertised for four weeks. 7. Other Items of Interest. The interviews for the Storm Drain Master Plan are scheduled for next Tuesday, March 9 from 1:30-4:30 p.m. John mentioned that Molzen-Corbin sent a letter about them not getting deducted for having a project on the way. Robert asked that they are saying that they should not be penalized for 50 points because of ongoing work, because this was on an engineering service contract? Does this exempt them? Robert said because it is an open-ended contract, do we include those and only take specific projects that go through as separate RFPs? John read part of the letter from Molzen-Corbin that said, "to meet this goal, the SAC may deduct points for each City project for which a consultant is under contract. This applies to all contracts with the City except for open-ended multiple source awards contracts with appraisers, surveyors, lawyers, etc." Robert said we would re-evaluate him again, and we will not take off points. John said no bonuses or deductions for anybody. He said we will do a totally fresh ranking, then we do the top 10 percent, and then the bonuses and deductions come in. Local preference will be added in at the end, and everybody that has a New Mexico bidder's number will get a state preference. There is no local preference. It will be a state preference prescribed by Procurement Code 24-100 that matches the Selection Advisory Committee 12 March 4,2004 Approved 4-16-04 SAC rules and procedures. The SAC rules reference 24-100 of the Procurement Code and the Procurement Code refers to the State. Robert said there is tension that is out there between the two front runners. This deals with a major drainage project that both of them have undertaken—all Highway 70. One of the firms did detailed, lengthy engineering drainage calculations for the US Highway 70 project. Somewhere along the process somebody decided that they couldn't afford to do that. The firm asked for changes, and the firm said based on engineering principals, they couldn't compromise, and they weren't going to do it. That firm was then fired from the Highway 70 project, and the other firm was hired and did the changes that they wanted. There are beliefs that the changes that were implemented could become problems for us. John indicated that this meeting will be a closed meeting. Each firm will conduct their presentation without the other firms being in attendance. John said this meeting is closed to the public. You can open up the meeting after the interviews. SAC meetings with evaluations should be closed based on the Procurement Code. Jorge and Robert said this hasn't been the practice in the past. John stated that in the Procurement Code that until the award is made, all evaluations are closed, because they become a public record after the evaluation and after the award is made. This is so it doesn't ruin your bargaining position. Mark said we shouldn't be applying this procedure to these interviews. John said that based on how we have it set up, we should close the meeting during the evaluation process, and then we can open up the meeting if they want to make a comment. After the award is made, then it becomes a public record. Robert said that we need to tell the firms that they can only be present after they have done their presentation. Mark said the SAC rules say that"interviewees or their agents who have not yet been interviewed will not be permitted to attend interviews of other interviewees." Mark suggested that in one of our regular SAC meetings, we should discuss how we should conduct evaluations. 8. Adjourn. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Jorge Garcia seconded to adjourn. Meeting ended at 12:35 p.m. Selection Advisory Committee 13 March 4,2004