Loading...
02-12-2004 ® Approved March 4, 2004 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING LAS CRUCES,NM A Selection Advisory Committee meeting was held on Thursday, February 12, 2004, in the Utilities Conference Room, 680 Motel Blvd., Las Cruces,NM. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Sutter, Chairperson, Financial Services Robert Garza, Public Works Jorge Garcia, Utilities Tomas Mendez for Christine Ochs, Facilities Brian Denmark, Community Development OTHERS PRESENT: John Tortelli, Purchasing Nora Silva-Jones, Purchasing Robert Ebler, Public Works Marcie Driggers, Legal Duane Goode, Legal Jerry Paz, Molzen Corbin Robert Richardson, Bohannan-Huston 1. Call Meeting to Order. Mark Sutter called the meeting to order at 9:18 a.m. 2. Continue Evaluation of the Storm Drain Master Plan Request for Proposals. Robert Ebler, Marcie Driggers, Robert Richardson, and Jerry Paz joined the committee. John gave background information and the status of the proposal. Robert Richardson from Bohannan-Huston brought up a question at the last SAC meeting on how the City applies local preference. They submitted a request to the City to review to make sure that the City is following the local preference the way it should be followed. The SAC placed the evaluation on hold until the research could be done and evaluated at this meeting. The representative from Bohannan-Huston, Robert Richardson, and the representative from Molzen Corbin, Jerry Paz, were in attendance. John went through the original evaluations and validated the scores. After validation of the scores, there were errors on some of the scoring sheets. After the errors were corrected, the numbers changed. After the scores were totaled and the high and low scores were eliminated, the total score was taken as well as the top 10 percent of those who were not part of the evaluation process. There was a change on the scores. On the originals that were done at the last SAC meeting, Molzen Corbin and Bohannan- Huston went into the next evaluation process. After the validation of the sheets and corrections were made, Camp Dresser made the 10 percent cut. The first time out,they were one point away from the 10 percent. The cut was 1602 points. Bohannan-Huston now has 1680 points, Camp Dresser now has 1620 points, and Molzen Corbin now has 1780 points. By doing this, the SAC Selection Advisory Committee 1 February 12,2004 Approved March 4,2004 goes through the rest of the evaluation process where now local preference is (, included. The cost proposal points change, because now, the lowest proposer is Camp Dresser at a cost of$124,000. Bohannan-Huston's cost is $188,888, and Molzen Corbin's cost is $373,753. When the original points were calculated, Bohannan-Huston received 354 points and Molzen Corbin received 191 points. With the revised points, Bohannan-Huston gets 221 points, Camp Dresser gets 324 points, and Molzen Corbin gets 118. The reasoning is because the cost points were calculated based on the lower cost proposal. The issue that the SAC needs to decide is whether local preference applies to this proposal. John met with Marcie Driggers from the Legal Department last week. They came to an agreement that the local preference does not apply to any of the proposals, because the way the ordinance is written. It is for the whole total corporation, not the local office. They looked at Ordinance Section 24-100 where it states that a residential NM preference can apply. If we put the NM residential preference that applies, and that applies to both Bohannan-Huston and Molzen Corbin but not to Camp Dresser, because they are an El Paso firm, 5 percent can be added to the total points of the evaluation and to the cost proposal. If this is done, the scoring changes where local preference is picked up for Molzen Corbin. They would still lose 50 points for having a contract with the City. The new scores would be Bohannan-Huston with 1901 points, Camp Dresser with 1944 points, and Molzen Corbin with 1848 points. The NM preference would be added which is 5 percent to the totals. Bohannan-Huston would get 95 points, Molzen Corbin would get 92 points, and the new grand total would be Bohannan-Huston with 1996 points. Camp Dresser wouldn't change. They would still stay at 1944 points, and Molzen Corbin would come up to 1941 points. Robert Garza stated that the way that Legal has interpreted the regulations and how they apply to this particular situation is fair. Everybody would agree that Bohannan-Huston and Molzen Corbin's offices in Las Cruces are very similar in nature and should be treated the same. Given the very close clustering of these firms, he asked the rest of the committee on following another element of the SAC rules. This is to conduct interviews to listen to these proposers, and why they are unique and why we should consider them over the other person. We would then re-evaluate at the conclusion of those interviews with the same understanding on the local preference. This would be the fairest way to approach this. Mark clarified that the interview process takes place after this initial evaluation between all three firms and the other three firms would not be called. Brian concurred with this. As a sense of fairness to the people that applied and given the confusion that has transpired,this is only fair to give them another shot. He would support this. There clearly needs to be some consideration of amendments to the procedures manual. Jorge concurred with this as well. Selection Advisory Committee 2 February 12,2004 Approved March 4, 2004 Robert stated that applying the NM preference is not something that is arbitrary in any way, and it is something that is prescribed by our procurement code. This is being applied to all the top 10 percent candidates. John asked whether professional services qualify for a preference. Legal has made some suggestions that we need to make changes to the procurement code. The SAC rules and procedures go back to the procurement code. Schedule B is in the process of being changed to reflect the procurement code. Marcie said that she was uncertain as to whether or not the SAC is consistently apprised by the preferences or the category within Section 24-100. John wasn't sure either; this is why she raised the issue that she felt in this particular instant, the Purchasing Department has sent out the local preference form. There certainly was that implication that preference is either local or resident, which is stated on the way it applies in this particular situation. Robert stated that the SAC has not differentiated between professional services or other services. Marcie questioned whether there is some inconsistency that the SAC might want to amend the last section in 24-100 where it talks about limitations. If it has been the practice to always apply preference to either professional or to regular services,then there might not be a need to amend that section. The request for proposal states that they get a local preference. Mark stated that two firms were similar in nature, and if local preference applies to one, it should apply for both. This was the issue on what to do with local preference. Robert said if we go with interviews, we would be rating them again. We are going to be asking the same questions on preference. MOTION: Robert moved and Brian Denmark seconded that we recognize local preference as defined by our City Attorney's Office to mean local as in the City, and that we recognize NM in-state bid preference as our procurement code outlines, and that we move forward with an interview process. Jorge said that he had a problem with that, because that is not what the memo from the City Attorney's office said. John stated that we are going to give them a preference, but we are not going to give a local preference, but we are going to give them a NM state resident preference. Selection Advisory Committee 3 February 12,2004 . Approved March 4, 2004 Robert said that this means that these two firms will get a preference and Camp (W Dresser will not. This will be the same guiding rules that we will use as we continue forward in our interviews and re-rating process. Jorge asked for clarification that the issuance of the NM preference indicate a certification number in not having or having offices in NM. He said you have to be careful with that, because CDM has offices in Albuquerque and throughout New Mexico. John said that if they have the number, they would place the number on the front page of their response to the proposal. Camp Dresser did not put it on there, so they are not considered to be a NM corporation. They have not paid taxes for two years. They have to pay taxes for two years. Tomas said that you are not required to have that state certification number. Robert said that we only ask that in their proposal, and these two firms did and Camp Dresser did not. If they want the 5 percent in-state preference, include the number. John read part of the definition of a New Mexico resident business. "New Mexico resident business" means a business which, at the time a contract is awarded, is authorized to do and is doing business under the laws of this state and: (1) maintains its principal place of business in this state; or (2) has staffed an office in this state and has paid applicable state taxes for two years prior to the awarding of the contract and has five or more employees who are residents of this state; or (3) is an affiliate of a business which meets the requirements of Paragraph 7.4.1. or Paragraph 7.4.2 [now Paragraph (1) or (2) of Subsection D of 1.4.2.7 NMAC] above. Mark asked whether the committee elects to or not elects to allow public participation in our meetings. The committee concurred that public participation be allowed at the meeting. Robert Richardson from Bohannan-Huston asked how far apart do these scores have to get before somebody is picked. The other question is how are the interviews going to count? Are you going to have a certain amount of points that are associated with them? Are they going to be added to the total score as it stands right now? Are we starting from scratch? Robert said that we start over and that the selection is going to be based on the interview. The scores will be re-rated after the interviews. Jerry Paz stated that John Tortelli made a comment that he would like SAC to consider. John had said that he is having Schedule B changed to reflect current (W code, and Jerry would suggest that Schedule B was done with a lot of public involvement and public meetings before the New Mexico Society of Professional Selection Advisory Committee 4 February 12,2004 Approved March 4, 2004 Engineers and before the Consultant Engineers Counsel. There was a lot of debate and discussion that went into the preparation of that document. Jerry would suggest that the code be changed to reflect Schedule B instead of the other way around. He said it would be more of an equitable process that defines local preference to mean contributing to this community. The second point that he made is that in Schedule B, it requires that you interview with an estimated fee over $100,000. That should have been contemplated from the beginning that interviews would be made. The third point is that he offered another suggestion. Every community in New Mexico follows the Brooks Bill, which is a federal procurement code for professional services. That process allows you to select the best-qualified firm even in this particular instance. What the procurement will do is negotiate with the best top-rated firm, and if you are unsuccessful, you toss it, and you go to the next rated firm, and so on down the line until you are satisfied. This way, you are getting the best firm for the best dollar. It allows for a very good selection process, and this is used all over New Mexico except in Las Cruces. Jerry asked the SAC to consider this procedure. Mark asked for a vote on the motion. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Robert moved and Brian seconded to conduct interviews. Robert said that we need to designate that the interview period should be one hour with 30 minutes for presentation and up to 30 minutes for questions. Mark asked for a vote on the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Robert Garza, Marcie Driggers, Robert Ebler, Robert Richardson, and Jerry Paz left the committee at this time. 3. Review Actuarial Services Request for Proposal. Duane Goode joined the committee as the user department. The committee reviewed the proposal page by page. PAGE 1 In the Overview section, Duane will talk to John about revising the contract period to clarify it a little bit better. Mark suggested that the contract would be done in 2004 and again in 2006. It will be the same contract with the same price. Tomas suggested using the standard format for the proposal where Roman numerals are incorporated into the document. In the Background Information, the very first sentence, a comma needs to replace the semicolon after the word"City". Selection Advisory Committee 5 February 12,2004 AWN Approved March 4,2004 In the Background Information, the last paragraph, Mark suggested adding a general statement about the City where information regarding the police, fire, and utilities can be stated as well as indicating the size of the budget in the general fund. In the Project Description, the last sentence was changed. There will be a period after the word"funds." The rest of the sentence will be deleted. The committee suggested needing a description of methodology. Duane is asking for a digitized version of all the raw data that they have worked on and specify the electronic format that is needed. Tomas suggested that the deliverables should be stated in the RFP as to the due date being spelled out. John will get with Duane on the due date. PAGE 2 The first paragraph on top of the second page will be deleted. In the Technical Proposal, Paragraph C, the words "professional certification" will be inserted after"a description of experience". PAGE 3 In the Proposal Evaluation Criteria, the standard language will be incorporated. There are no changes to the weights. Thep aragraph after the evaluation criteria table will be deleted. Cost will be used in this proposal. The standard procedure will apply. Somewhere in the proposal, "liquidated damages" need to be specified. John suggested sending out a sample contract with terms and attach a scope of work. PAGE 4 In the Cancellation of RFP Paragraph B, the first sentence will be corrected where it states that an RFP can be cancelled after award. The local preference and Schedule A and B will apply. The award needs to be done by the end of March. Sixty days is plenty of time. MOTION: Jorge Garcia moved and Tomas Mendez seconded the motion to reduce the advertising time from the standard four weeks to a two-week advertising. Motion passed unanimously. Duane will give a list of the companies listed where he wants the proposals to be sent. Selection Advisory Committee 6 February 12,2004 Approved March 4,2004 This proposal will not be coming back to the SAC. Duane Goode left the committee at this time. 4. Review Financial Services Request for Proposal. This proposal was removed from the agenda. It will be discussed at a later date. 5. Other Items of Interest. The committee decided to conduct interviews on the Storm Drain Master Plan Request for Proposal on Thursday, February 26. Robert Garza will be contacted before the time and date are finalized. The Financial Services Request for Proposal will be reviewed after the interviews are conducted. 6. Adjourn. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Jorge Garcia seconded to adjourn the meeting. Meeting ended at 11:00 a.m. Selection Advisory Committee 7 February 12,2004