Loading...
01-22-2004 ® Approved March 4,2004 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING (W LAS CRUCES,NM A Selection Advisory Committee meeting was held on Thursday, January 22, 2004, in the Communications Conference Room, 1501 E. Hadley. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Sutter, Chairperson, Financial Services Robert Garza, Public Works Gilbert Morales for Jorge Garcia, Utilities Christine Ochs for Mike Johnson, Facilities Brian Denmark, Community Development OTHERS PRESENT: John Tortelli, Purchasing Nora Silva-Jones, Purchasing Pam Davis, Purchasing Bertha Chavira, Purchasing Cuco Perea, Public Works Robert Ebler, Public Works Kelly Sweetser, Administration Rob Caldwell, Administration Robert Richardson, Bohannan-Huston 1. Call Meeting to Order. 4W Mark Sutter called the meeting to order at 9:20 a.m. 2. Approve Minutes of December 11, 2003 Meeting. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Robert Garza seconded to approve the minutes as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Evaluate Storm Drain Master Plan Request for Proposals. Robert Ebler and Cuco Perea joined the committee as the user department. Robert Garza's observations on the proposals was that Blackham, Roman, Gunaji are partners with the Larkin Group. They are one of the best firms to do this type of work. They are already limited to their commitment to undertake this work. The company they are partnering with has recently done other projects for the City, and they have not done very well. With the Bohannan-Huston proposal, they are partnering with Zia Engineering who is a local company, but half the work will be done in Albuquerque. Bohannan-Huston would have the best data as far as topography and mapping. They do have a local office, and the people that they have on their list are a strong team. One of the consultants is Larry Blair who has a lot of experience in flood control and policies. He used to be the President of Albuquerque Metropolitan Flood Control Authority as well as the Public Works Director for the City of Albuquerque for about six years. He does have a lot of policy background, and he mentioned a lot of things that were (W important. They have recently been hired to do aerial photography for the County and the City, so they will have the best data for topography and mapping and access to that with no additional cost to the City. The other standout group was Selection Advisory Committee 1 January 22,2004 Approved March 4,2004 Molzen-Corbin. One hundred percent of the work would be done by local engineers in Las Cruces. They elaborated on a capital improvement program where they would compare projects relative to one another. They made a lot of references to storm water utilities and storm water impact fees. Those are things that we can consider implementing. Robert Ebler stated that Souder Miller has teamed up with Resources Technology, Inc. We currently have an engineering service contract with them that we issued with them over a year ago. There is a deliverable of a flood insurance map study which has to be submitted to FEMA. They have a 60-day contract, and it is over one year old. Mr. Ebler said that Blackham, Roman, Gunaji had a bad reference. They left the firm over a FEMA flood insurance study. Robert stated that FEMA is not spending as much time and energy dealing with these issues as they used to since Sept. 11. They focus more on homeland security, so they are not turning things around as quickly as they used to. There are a lot of developers out there who get frustrated because of that. Mark stated that Souder Miller didn't recognize receipt of an addendum. Robert said that the addendum outlined a change in the amount of time that was going to be provided to allow completion of the work. It changed the timeline from three months to six months for preliminary report. They did submit a Gant chart, and they proposed to take a full six months. We changed the proposal due date. Whether anybody received the addendum or not shouldn't have that much bearing from them except the ability of the proposal. This was Addendum One, and this wasn't included in our copies. Robert said that Molzen-Corbin didn't use his reference when they checked references. They checked all the others. Robert made an observation about references. The references that were given to Molzen Corbin were all considered outstanding, great, etc. They do very good customer service. Robert Ebler stated that they have been trying to get drainage studies from Parsons on Hwy. 70, and they won't give them out. John Tortelli read the scores less the high and the low. The subtotal ratings were: Blackham, Roman, Gunaji 1660 Bohannan-Huston 1770 Camp, Dresser, McKee 1700 Selection Advisory Committee 2 January 22,2004 Approved pp d March 4,2004 Molzen Corbin 1890 Parsons Engineering 1460 Souder Miller& Associates 1555 Molzen Corbin scored the highest. Ten percent of 1890 is 189. Subtract 189 from 1890 gives a score of 1701. Any firm scoring more than 1701 will be included. Molzen Corbin and Bohannan-Huston scored within the top ten percent. John Tortelli stated that Molzen Corbin gets a local preference and Bohannan- Huston doesn't get a local preference. The firm of Molzen Corbin received 100 points for local preference. Robert stated that Bohannan-Huston does have a local office with project managers locally. John stated that they didn't request a local preference. Mark stated that we did provide the forms, and they have to fill out the forms as stated in the RFP. Robert Garza just signed a contract with Molzen Corbin yesterday for the 14th Street Reconstruction Redesign, so they do have jobs in progress. Molzen Corbin was the only firm that had 50 points deducted for jobs in progress. (W The cost proposals were: Bohannan-Huston $188,888 Molzen Corbin $3735753 The cost ratio points were: Bohannan-Huston 354 Molzen Corbin 191 The total final ratings were: Bohannan-Huston 2124 Molzen Corbin 2131 John stated that he hasn't verified all the numbers from everybody, so they could change if there is some type of error in the evaluation. We have been checking them, and there have been errors. People are not doing the math correctly. Mark stated that the City Council has to make the decision for the award of the contract. We only make a recommendation. LRobert said that typically when we get to this point,the SAC gives direction to the user department to negotiate a contract and take it to City Council. Negotiating being the key term. Staff should negotiate with Molzen Corbin and explain to Selection Advisory Committee 3 January 22,2004 Approved pp oved March 4,2004 them that their price is considerably higher than the other firm whose score is within seven points, and that City Council can choose whichever they think is in the best interest of the City with hopes in getting Molzen Corbin to reduce their price. If they are willing to do that, that is what we will take to City Council. We still have to present to the City Council the two firms along with their final scores. Brian agreed with Robert that the user department needs to negotiate with Molzen Corbin to get them to come down. Robert said that Bohannan Huston will have the digital data that they have already done on the aerial photography for the City and County whereas Molzen Corbin is not counting in having that information. The contract with Bohannan-Huston is paying them almost $900,000 to do this. This is why the two cost proposals are so different. The committee needs to recommend to the City Council the high score; therefore, Robert Garza made a motion as follows. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Brian Denmark seconded to have the user department take forward the resolution to the City Council to award this engineering service with staffs recommendation to award Molzen- Corbin, because their score is higher; however, allow staff to negotiate with these firms and present the information to City Council as well as part of the same document. Present the negotiated value if there is a change to City Council for their consideration as well as the user department to disclose scores in the cost of both firms. We need to allow staff to present both. Motion passed unanimously. After the meeting, John will verify the numbers to make sure they are correct. Robert Ebler and Cuco Perea left the committee at this time. John reiterated that this has disqualified other proposals, because they submitted a form, but they didn't complete the form correctly. Brian asked what purpose is it really serving, especially when we know that they are local. John said it is the responsibility of the bidder to submit and request it everytime, since we don't have a database set up to capture this information. Brian said local preference needs to be defined. Maybe fifty percent of the work has to be done locally to qualify for local preference. Molzen Corbin has significant holdings and their main office is in Albuquerque. The local office is the Southwest Office. Brian stated that the local preference form doesn't match the proposal. Selection Advisory Committee 4 January 22,2004 Approved March 4,2004 (r Robert Richardson, Senior Vice President and Managing Principal, from Bohannan-Huston for the record stated that this local preference issue is significant in terms of how that particular form reads. I went back and read it again. From Bohannan Huston's perspective, his question is, "What is the procedure—I don't want to say protest the recommendation, because that is not what I'm looking for, but I am looking for some clarification on the local preference issue. So how do I go about requesting that be done before this recommendation goes to Council? Mark stated that you can make a written request for the committee for clarification, and you don't have to do a protest route. John stated that the first part of the process is that you make a written determination to the...I don't think we address protests in the SAC. Mark said what he is saying is that he is not making a protest. Robert Richardson said that if that is what we have to do, that is what we will do, but don't misunderstand me. I am going to fight for this contract if, I believe, that we should have it from a local preference perspective. I believe that is true, but I don't want to make that an issue for the City in terms of getting the project done. (W Robert Garza asked Robert Richardson whether he believes that it was an oversight or do you believe that you shouldn't have filled this out? Robert Richardson stated that he believed that he shouldn't have filled it out. As a corporation, we don't qualify for any of those entities, and I don't believe that Molzen Corbin does either. Mr. Richardson said that he doesn't know which one they checked. I do believe that the way that preference is structured has some built-in inherences in it. We went through it very systemtically in terms of whether to turn it in or not by literally doing a poll of all of our 16 people in my office down here where not all of them live inside the City limits. John said that at least 25 percent need to live inside the City limits of the people that you polled in your office. Mr. Richardson stated that this doesn't say just the office—it says the whole company. The local office all live in the urban area, but they all don't live in the City, so I feel like I've been penalized for being honest here, and it is an issue that I need to address. Mark said we will recognize your comments in the minutes. Mr. Richardson asked whether there is a timeline—I am going to write the letter right now if that is what I need to do. Selection Advisory Committee 5 January 22,2004 Approved March 4,2004 (W Robert Garza stated that the only recourse that you have under the rules that I recall is that you can protest the award of the contract but not the recommendation. If you are going to protest, it is after the Council takes action, and then you can protest that action which theoretically will stop us from moving forward until we answer your protest. Mark stated that the committee only makes a recommendation to the Council. Robert said that we will be exploring this local preference issue with our City Attorney in more detail along with John. We will have to do a lot of assessing prior to actually going to City Council. Mr. Richardson stated that the committee do a diligent investigation relative to local preference, and make sure that in your mind you believe that there is a disparity between the two companies, because I don't see that. Brian said that the motion that was approved included all the information be forwarded to City Council. As a part of that City Council packet, it is a public record, so you can have that information. You need to add that to your request, so you are aware of what is going to City Council before it goes to City Council. Robert said that we intend, (I think you were out of the room when we talked (W about this), but the actual motion is that we are going to present to the City Council both proposals, and we will tell them what the total score was and explain the local preference issue and how all the elements that contributed to that question. We are going to give them the different prices and scores, and the City Council can choose to award whichever contract they wish. Robert said that this is the direction that the committee has given the user department for them to move ahead and give the City Council all the information. Mark said that he doubts that this item will be put on consent because of the issues involved. There will be an opportunity to address the City Council assuming it is not on consent. Robert Richardson left the committee at this time. Robert said that the last statement on the Local Preference Form states "You must return this form with your offer." They have to turn it in regardless. Pam Davis asked if there is a difference between a resident preference and a local preference? Mark asked John to compile a list of some of the major points distributed to the (W SAC members from our discussion today, and we can decide to meet about it, and provide specific direction on what needs to go to City Council with this recommendation. Selection Advisory Committee 6 January 22,2004 Approved March 4,2004 (W Robert said that at this point, we shouldn't be negotiating with anybody. Either we have to call another SAC meeting to reconsider our previous direction based on new information before we go to City Council. Mark asked for a motion to rescind the previous motion. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Brian Denmark seconded to rescind the previous motion to recommend to the City Council the award of this proposal. Motion passed unanimously. Robert would like to propose a motion to request the Purchasing Manager to contact Molzen Corbin to gain clarification of the local preference status as discussed in our SAC meeting today, and based on the outcome of their response to their request, I would recommend to the SAC to reconvene and make a final recommendation for award based on the outcome of that evaluation. MOTION: Robert moved and Brian Denmark seconded to ask the Purchasing Manager to attain clarification and reconvene and make a final recommendation for award for this contract. Motion passed unanimously. AMENDED MOTION: Robert moved and Christine Ochs seconded to amend the previous motion to amend it slightly to include recertification clarification of the scoring in computing for preparation of that meeting in case there were any changes to the total since they were close. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Review Risk Assessment Request for Proposals. Kelly Sweetser joined the committee as the user department. Robert asked a general question whether there is a set budget amount to do this. Kelly stated that there is between $80,000 to $100,000. Robert asked why cost will not be used as a factor in the evaluation. Kelly stated that she would rather have a good quality package and not worry about cost. She wouldn't be opposed as putting a cost factor in the proposal. John said we are waiving local preference and equitable distribution of business. The committee reviewed the proposal page by page. PAGE 1 The last sentence in the third paragraph in the Introduction Section will be moved to the first paragraph in the Overview Section for clarification. (W The first sentence in the Overview Section will have the word "municipal" added before the words "risk assessment". Selection Advisory Committee 7 January 22,2004 Approved March 4,2004 The first two sentences in the third paragraph in the Introduction Section will be deleted. The first sentence in the second paragraph in the Introduction Section the number of departments will be changed to "11". In the Scope of Services Section, the first paragraph, last sentence on that page, there will be an addition to read, "...of its component units to the extent that the City perform functions...". Mark suggested narrowing this down a bit so that they didn't point to what aspects. PAGE 2 On top of the page, the word"model"will be added to the first sentence, Paragraph B. Mark stated that Jorge informed everyone at last night's meeting that gas and wastewater is coming up. Do we want to exclude those as well? There will be very specific studies done on those systems. Kelly will check with Jorge first. This information is for Paragraph f,Number 6. In the Risk Identification paragraph, the physical assets, letter a, is too broad. In the Risk Measurement paragraph, letter a, the sentence will change to read, "Risk occurrence, e.g., like the probability..." In the Risk Measurement paragraph, letter b, the word"including"will replace "This includes" so the sentence will flow better. Paragraph d will become a new paragraph. In Paragraph Number 4, letter a, the last part of that sentence will be changed to read, "...management procedures, including Administrators, Managers, and Department Directors." PAGE 3 A new paragraph will be added as Paragrah 5 for an Implementation Plan for a risk model. In the General Instructions, Paragraph B, John said we will have a non-disclosure form in the contract where they cannot release the information without prior authorization from the City. The first sentence will be changed to read, "The selected proposer will provide the Internal Auditor the original two copies of the initial draft." The second sentence will have the word"final" inserted before the words "draft document". John suggested that maybe we might want to submit the RFP with a contract which will disclose all that type of information. We own everything that they produce. They can't disclose anything without an expressed written permission from the City. Selection Advisory Committee 8 January 22,2004 Approved March 4,2004 Paragraph C will be deleted, because it is redundant. Paragraph D,the word"Once"will be deleted and replaced by the words "When the final document..." The last sentence in that paragraph will be changed to read, "The Internal Auditor will schedule training with staff with the selected proposer." Robert stated that in addition to the cost, we can ask them to provide hourly rates for additional work where we can negotiate per additional hours. Kelly said we can ask them to describe any training that will be necessary and add what Robert suggested. Robert said that it will be part of our evaluation, but it will be a basis to allow you to negotiate a contract for those services. We do want the proposal to include training, and we can include an organizational chart with the number of employees. Robert said that we should state to include all related travel expenses. They'll need to provide separate hourly rates, number of trips, and the total estimated training costs. Robert said that the training cost information provided in the cost proposal will be used for the basis of negotiating a contract for this work if it is deemed necessary by the City. If we decide that we want it, we will write up a contract based on what they tell us. Mark said that you have some idea going into it what the cost is going to be. Robert stated that you prevent them from increasing the price later. John said that the cost proposal will be used in the evaluation of the RFP. The training proposal will only be used in the negotiation of the contract. Pam will help Kelly write the proposal. In Paragraph E,the third sentence will begin with"All electronic..." PAGE 4 In the Proposal Content, Paragraph 2,the first sentence will be changed to read, "Profile of proposed risk assessment team..." The word"engagement"will be replaced by"risk assessment" throughout this section. Mark suggested having a description on education in this paragraph. Paragraph No. 4 will be deleted. In Paragraph 9, the word"taken" will be deleted. A sentence can be added that asks whether they have been sanctioned or penalized as a result of litigation. Selection Advisory Committee 9 January 22,2004 Approved March 4,2004 In Paragraph 10, staff suggested having"five" governmental risk assessments...within the last three years. If the list..." There will be a new Paragraph as Number 11 where the sentence begins as "Description of the plan..." Paragraph 11 will change to Paragraph 12. The words "and should"will be deleted and the word"include"will be changed to "including". A separate Gantt chart should be provided for training. In the Cost Proposal Contents, the word"not" will be deleted in the first sentence. John will incorporate the standard cost language into this section. Mark stated that this will be the section where Kelly will put the part about subject to the cost proposal and training used for negotiation purposes. PAGE 5 In Paragraph No. 1 on top of the page, a sentence will be added to state, `This will be the basis for post evaluation procedures." The evaluation criteria was changed as follows: Qualifications/competence of engagement team members to perform the assessment. 35% Experience of engagement team in the performance of of risk assessments with other entities. 30% Management structure and approach to the assessment including detailed timeline, task breakdowns, and assignments. 20% Performance of the firm with previous clients on similar engagements based upon quality of the work, control of costs, ability to meet schedules or deadlines and responsiveness to the client. 10% Clarity of the proposal. 5% MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Christine Ochs seconded to approve the evaluation criteria and weights since it deviates from the standard evaluation criteria. Motion passed unanimously. In Paragraph B, the sentence will change to read, "SAC will use the evaluation and post-evaluation procedure described in Schedule B with the exception of Section A which are the bonuses and deductions—Section III-A. Selection Advisory Committee 10 January 22,2004 Approved March 4,2004 MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Christine Ochs seconded to delete Section III-A from the requirements in the post evaluation process. Motion passed unanimously. Advertising for this proposal will be the standard four weeks. Kelly Sweetser left the committee at this time. 5. Review Music in the Park Request for Proposals. Robert Caldwell joined the committee as the user department. Cost is a factor. Rob said one of the things that is tough is that you can't tell the quality of an act until they perform, so you don't know what you are getting. The City Council has moved towards booking local acts. Rob stated what is more important is the experience, their management, and administrative. This is more important than the cost. The amount of$30,000 for nine dates is not a lot of money. Cost is not that important. Robert Caldwell stated that $30,000 is not only the cost per the acts, but it is the cost of providing the service. He suggested that cost be separated as proposals are evaluated and not tie costs to the performers or acts but cost for the service. Some acts will perform for one hour while others perform for 1 '/2 hours with a 5- 10 minute break. We want to leave this up to the booking agency. Rob stated that one of the things that he wanted to include in the Overview Section is that we need to add June 2005. Rob stated that he is asking for a flat administrative fee to administer this contract. They get a percentage, and it can be 15 percent. The production costs, depending on the type of act, might be that they might need more lights, more sound, etc. Rob said that you need to make sure that you have more money going into the production costs and the act. Sound and lights are important and band sound. The committee went through the proposal page by page. PAGE 1 The last sentence in the Overview Section will have an addition at the end of the sentence to read, "...reserves the right to add or delete acts, dates, and locations from the schedule." Selection Advisory Committee 11 January 22,2004 Approved March 4,2004 In the Scope of Services, the last sentence in Paragraph A, the word "or"will be replaced by the word"and". Rob said that part of the evaluation will be the administrative costs or a percentage of administrative costs. PAGE 2 Robert Garza stated that this addition will be inserted in the Proposal Content, Paragraph B,Number 1. Numbers 2-5 in the cost proposal will be deleted. (Lighting, sound, fees, and any other costs.) Mark stated that we have to make it clear that the administrative fee is the only payment that we make to the booking services. Robert suggested to write in the RFP and in the contract, to the production manager,that they will bring the City the invoices within three days from the event, and the City will process those payments, and make payments due to your contractor within this period of time. John suggested using a Request for Payment after the service. This will be a blanket order. Mark said we'll need an itemized statement for each act that shows the (W performance cost, production cost, and administrative fee. John asked Rob to list this request in the Scope of Services Section in Paragraph B under invoice and billing on how you want to be billed. Rob said we will pay administrative fee, performer's fee, production costs, and gross receipts tax which will be billed on completion of each act. Rob questioned how the administrative fee is determined. Robert Garza suggested that the vendor can bring you an invoice after week one. If there were three acts, and the total cost was $2400 including the production and the act, you are going to add his percentage, whatever is in his contract, and add this to the week's cost, add tax, and you pay the total amount. The following week it might be $1800. We'll know that his administrative fee is 15 percent of whatever it is of the overall cost of the acts and production costs. They'll just put that on the invoice for us. In the Proposal Content, Cost Proposal, the first paragraph will read, "The cost will be used as an evaluation criteria in the administrative fee as a percent of the acts and out-of-pocket production costs." In the Scope of Services, a new paragraph, Letter C, will be added at the end of Page 1. Selection Advisory Committee 12 January 22,2004 Approved March 4,2004 In the Scope of Services, Paragraph B, in submitting their invoices, we tell the _ vendor that it is going to be the talent or the act plus out-of-pocket production costs and administrative fees. In the Proposal Content, Paragraph A,Number 4 will be deleted. John will talk to the City Attorney to see if we need to put something specific regarding insurance requirements for this RFP. In the Proposal Content, Paragraph A, the word"firm"will be replaced with "proposer" in sentences Number 1 and Number 2. PAGE 3 In the Proposal Evaluation and Selection, the criteria and weights were changed to read as follows. Capacity/Capability to perform the project and in a timely manner. 25% Experience in doing production work and outdoor events. 50% Responsiveness with previous clients with similar contracts. 20% Clarity of proposal. 5% MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Christine Ochs seconded to change the evaluation criteria as discussed. Motion passed unanimously. In Paragraph B, local preference will be waived. There is only one person locally that can do this. Rob stated that we have people in El Paso and Albuquerque who can also do this. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Christine Ochs seconded to remove local preference from consideration. Motion passed unanimously. The advertising will be for three weeks, so a motion is required since it deviates from the standard. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Christine Ochs seconded to advertise this proposal for three weeks. Motion passed unanimously. Mark informed Rob that the City Manager will appoint two additional people to serve on the SAC to conduct evaluations. You need to forward these names to John Tortelli, so he can send an official notification to the City Manager. They don't have to be City staff. 6. Other Items of Interest. There were no other items of interest. Selection Advisory Committee 13 January 22,2004 ® Approved March 4,2004 7. Adjourn. Robert Garza moved and Christine Ochs seconded to adjourn. Meeting ended at 12:50 p.m. Selection Advisory Committee 14 January 22,2004