Loading...
02-06-1998 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING LAS CRUCES, N.M. meeting of the Selection Advisory Committee was held on Friday, February 6. 1998, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 N. Church Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillor John Haltom Councillor Karen Stevens Councillor Jack Valencia Jerry Trojan, Asst. City Manager OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Provencio, EAP Coordinator Pete Connelly,Deputy City Attorney Barbara Willis, Finance Richard Hodgin,Risk Management Billie-Jo Guevera, Purchasing David Aguayo, Word Processing Center Councillor Haltom called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m Councillor Haltom stated this meeting is for the purpose of reconsidering the SAC's recommendation regarding proposals for mental health service to employees of the City of Las Cruces. Councillor Haltom briefly explained the procedures of the SAC at this point. Councillor Haltom stated he did not attend the mechanical compilation of the evaluations and the application of post evaluation procedures which includes deductions for contracts in progress. That particular provision in our procedures was waived by a vote of the committee when we were establishing this RFP. Later during the review of the evaluations the committee determined it would not do that because that deduction was contrary to the procedures themselves which had been adopted by a City Council resolution. So in affect what we ended up with was a decision based upon two conflicting provisions;one in the RFP and then the provisions which were established in the procedures themselves. Councillor Haltom stated our lawyer checked out those procedures and informed us that the procedures did not grant us the authority to waive that deduction for contracts in progress. Jerry Trojan stated when we looked at the deductions for the 50 points we went to the attachment to the RFP which has the procedures for the deductions, we went through our normal procedures but we did not go to the body of the RFP where the paragraph indicated the points would not be deducted. There were six of us here and none of us remembered the waiver of the provision for contracts in progress. That aside during our subsequent review of the situation we have received an opinion from our attorney indicating while we have the ability to supplement and modify certain parts of our procedures and the rules as approved by the City Council we do not have any specific authority to modify or waive the post evaluation procedures including the points for contracts in progress. Councillor Haltom stated since he had left before the time the evaluations were weighed and before the motion to make a recommendation was made he will not participate in whatever the SAC votes to do. 1. Review minutes of September 19, 1997. MOTION: Councillor Stevens moved to approve the minutes of September 19, 1997. Councillor Valencia seconded. Discussion followed: Jerry Trojan stated in reading the minutes you will see that the issue was discussed on whether or not we would waive contracts in progress. He indicated that his research of the records indicate whether or not we have had the authority to waive this, in the past we have waived the post evaluation points on at least three RFPs. Therefore,when the motion was made to waive those it was consistent to the way we had operated in the past two years. Jerry Trojan also pointed out that while the body of this RFP was being delivered Councillor Frietze was never a member of the SAC. Councillor Stevens stated she thought it needed to be pointed out to everyone present that he reason the SAC is even discussing this RFP is because of the amount of money involved. In previous years these contracts have been awarded without any kind of review. It was the managers assessment and we agreed to do it that because of the large amounts of money involved in these types of contracts that possibly it needed more review than his or the direct staff. This is outside of the purview of the normal SAC rules and regulations so when we did it we were at a loss as to how we were going to do these things and there end lies the problem. At the time we said we were going to waive the contracts in progress because we didn't think it was relative to this type of a contract. This is the second or third contract of this nature that we have evaluated and that's been in the last six months. Councillor Haltom called for the motion on the floor. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Review of letters from proposers. Jerry Trojan stated he had another letter from Marjean Spayer which came through AV the SAC. He pointed this out because our procedures indicate that it should be going to the Purchasing Department. He asked if the SAC wanted to accept it he would pass it out. Councillor Haltom asked if this was something that this committee should be concerned in. For us to be involved responding to submissions by lawyers is a mistake. He suggested what we should be doing is deciding whether to reconsider and determine whether you wish to make another judgement rather than trying to respond to legal documents that we're not prepared to respond to. Jerry Trojan recommended that we did not respond to these but he did think the committee should have the opportunity to review them so they see what is being said. The documents are out and he thinks the committee has the right to see them. Pete Connelly stated the only thing he could find in the rules that allows anything for an applicant or a proposer to do is ask for reconsideration. MOTION: Councillor Valencia moved to acknowledge receipt,distribute and follow with our agenda. Jerry Trojan seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Jerry Trojan stated under the procedures we have the ability to reconsider. Jerry Trojan read the part of the rules dealing with reconsideration(VII, A, 1). MOTION: Councillor Valencia moved to reconsider the RFP. Joe Provencio seconded. Councillor Haltom called for the vote: Councillor Valencia asked if the no vote to reconsider would mean that the award would retain the original recommendation of the SAC committee and not the modified point which would then potentially create an award for a different provider. Jerry Trojan stated barring a motion to reconsider the original SAC recommendation would have the original recommendation going forward to the City Council Councilor Stevens stated the alternative would be to request to be rebid. She asked if you would have to reconsider it to request it to be rebid because her feeling is that we should rebid it. Jerry Trojan voted aye Barbara Willis voted aye Joe Provencio voted aye Richard Hodgin voted aye Councillor Valencia voted aye Councillor Stevens voted nay Councillor Haltom abstained Motion carried. Pete Connelly requested to meet with the SAC to discuss possible litigation. MOTION: Councillor Stevens moved to suspend the rules to have a private discussion with the Deputy City Attorney. Jerry Trojan seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The SAC adjourned briefly at 2:45 p.m. to meet with Pete Connelly. Councillor Haltom called the meeting back to order at 2:50 p.m. MOTION: Jerry Trojan moved to recommend to the City Council that all proposals be rejected. To keep this situation from re-occurring he further moved to direct staff to draft revised rules and procedures for the SAC to review, modify and recommend to the City Council. Councillor Stevens seconded. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Jerry Trojan moved to adjourn the meeting. Councillor Stevens seconded. Motion carried unanimously. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:55 P.M.