Loading...
Agenda 07/27/2010 Item #16E12Agenda Item No, 1GE12 July 27, 2010 Page 1 of 14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to ratify the Selection Committees' ranking of firms and contracts previously awarded in response to RFP #09 -5262; to declare a valid public purpose for payment of all work orders issued in good faith under RFP #09 -5262; and to approve an Administrative Procedure to be amended to the County's Purchasing Policy for the distribution of work under continuing contracts negotiated under the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act or CCNA. OBJECTIVE: To determine that unpaid invoices issued for work performed under contract #09 -5262 reflect fair value, were negotiated in good faith, and serve a valid public purpose to the County and to develop a procedure for future work orders to be issued under this and any other contract subject to the CCNA. CONSIDERATIONS: In June 2009, in response to direction from the Board of County Commissioners, staff began the process of re- competing and consolidating several fixed term engineering contracts under RFP #09 -5262. At the time the RJP was released and selection committees convened, staff contemplated using the Board approved Best Value Offer (BVO) process to distribute work among the firms once they were under contract. Prior to the Board awarding any contracts under this solicitation, the Clerk of the Circuit Court (Clerk) notified the BCC that his office had received letters from attorneys representing professional organizations questioning the validity of the County's BVO process, that his Office was reviewing the legality of payments under this process, and that he was ceasing payments until the legality could be determined. For this reason, when award of contracts negotiated under RFP #09 -5262 was made by the BCC. staff recommended against use of the BVO process to distribute work until the issue could be resolved. To address the work orders that had already been issued using the BVO process, staff stopped all work in progress under such work orders and re- issued work orders under the new contracts that had been negotiated in the manner that had been utilized for many years prior to adoption of BVO. For further clarification on the matter, by letter dated April 8, 2010, the Clerk sougltt a formal Attorney General Opinion that addressed not only payment of the invoices for work already performed, but also the process for negotiating continuing contracts under the CCNA. On .tune 7, 2010, the Attorney General issued his opinion (AGO 10 -20), a copy of which is attached to this agenda item. Regarding the issuance of multiple continuing contracts, AGO 10 -20 states, "While this office has concluded that an agcncN may enter into multiple continuing contracts, compliance with the CCNA is required in each instance. (see AGO 07 -49)" AGO 07 -49, which is referenced above states the following regarding continuing contracts and the award of work under such contracts, "Nothing in section 287 -055, Florida Statutes, limits the number of continuing contracts into which an agency may enter at one time. In fact, the statute appears to recognize that multiple contracts may be in effect sintuttancously; otherwise, the statutory language precluding firtns from being required to bid against one another would be superfluous. I would note that this office, in Attorney General's Opinion 9; -56_ concluded that the CCNA does not provide criteria for negotiating an engagement to contract for professional services under a continuing contract, and a municipality may develop its own procedures for evaluating such a contract. Thus, as that opinion and subsequent A1enJa Item Ho. iH12 July 27, 2010 Page 2 of 14 opinions of this office have recognized, if a municipality determines that it is appropriate to develop criteria for determining which firm under continuing contract with the city will be selected to perform a project, it may do so. However, the opinion suggests that it may be advisable for governmental entities to adopt administrative rules of procedure to insure that these criteria are applied unifomtly to all continuing contracts into which the entity is a party." Given that the County will not be using the BVO process going forward to distribute work under CCNA continuing contracts, staff determined that the project area entitled "Coastal Zone and Environmental" Services needed to he broken into two separate groups. Accordingly, the selection committee for that project area was publicly re- convened on July 13, at which time the rankings for that group were broken into the following subgroups: Coastal Zone: 1. Coastal Engineering Consultants 2. PBS &J 3. Coastal Planning & Engineering Environmental: 1. PBS &J 2. Johnson Engineering 3. TetraTech 4. CH2MHill To ensure compliance with the C'CNA and the interpretations above, staff recommends that the BCC takes the following steps: 1. Ratify the ranking of the selection committees for each engineering discipline under RFP #09- 5362 including the referenced modifications to the coastal and environmental project areas as set forth herciu. 2. Ratify the continuing contracts entered into ip good faith with each of the ranked fimns under RPP #09 -5262. 3. Declare that a valid public purpose was served in the issuance of work orders up to the date of this action under RFP #09 -5262 and any other fixed icrm contracts negotiated in a similar manner; that the dollar amount rellecied in those work orders fairly and equitably reflects the fair value for the work and /or materials already prop °ided or that which is to he provided; and direct the Clerk to make payment of invoices in support of that work and %or material that are provided with proper documentation showinl-I completion of scrvjccs. 4. Approve the attached Administrative Procedure to he incorporated into the Board's Purchasing Policy for the distribution of work under continuing contracts that fall under the CCN.A. FISCAL IMPACT: Each work order is or will be budgeted within the deparuneat requesting the work. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient for Board action —SRT. GROWTH MANAGEMENT' IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with the Executiec Summary. Agenda Item No. 16E12 July 27, 2010 Page 3 of 14 RECOMMENDATION: That the Board ratifies the ranking and contracts issued under RFP #09 -5262; directs the Clerk to make payment on existing and forthcoming invoices under work orders already processed in accordance with the considerations above that are submitted with proper documentation showing completion of services; and approves the proposed administrative procedures for distributing work in the future. PREPARED BY: Len Golden Price, ASD Administrator Steve Carnell, Purchasing /General Services Director Agenda Item No. 15E12 July 27, 2010 Page 4 of 14 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: 16E12 Item Summary: Recommendation to ratify the Selection Committees ranking of firms and contracts previously awarded in response to RFP #09- 5262:. to declare a valid public purpose for payment of all work orders issued in good faith under RFP #09- 5262, and to approve an Administrative Procedure to be amended to the Countys Purchasing Policy for the distribution of work under continuing contracts negotiated under the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act or CCNA. Meeting Date: 7/272010 9:00:00 AM Approved By Steve Carnell Director- Purchasing /General Services Date Administrative Services Division Purchasing & General Services 7145,'2010 8:10 PM Approved By Len Golden Price Administrator - Administrative Services Date Administrative Services Division Administrative Services Division 7196;2010 8:12 AM Approved By Or. ",B Coordinator Cate County Manager's Office Cf`ize of I:47nagement & Budget 7116,2010 L:56 AM Approved By Therese Stanley Manager - Operations Support - Trans Cate Office o`. !l`anaoement & Budget 3'fice of 11.anagement & Budget 7;961'',.010 40:06 AM Approved By Jc•K Kiatakow L:ounty Alto; n -'y Gate 1:80 -ft Approved By Leo c. Ochs. Jr. County Manager Date 7o:;ntt, L1ar s cfih e zc,,u,�y .1 < <_ , Office 2.22 PM } \ƒ } \�\ IZ :� ®K! °2j \ /))�� =:: :f:`!{! - >7; — \ # $ ) ) f :, » «3 ;;,» : ::�t�» ;§: IZ \ } \ \ \, /o , , ! ) / }i _ - . _ - _ - - /��� / / - _ -- _ _ . - - 1 - 1 02 -- . , . . Administrative Work Order Distribution Procedure aoenda Item No. 16E12 July 27, 2010 Page 7 of "4 I. Method for awarding work orders under 287.055 F.S., otherwise known as "The Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act" or "CCNA ". A. Overview Collier County enters in contracts for professional services subject to 287.055, F.S., otherwise known as the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (or "CCNA ") through executing and completing the selection and negotiation phases set forth under the law. The purpose of this section of the policy is to establish administrative guidance governing the distribution of work to firms that have been placed under contract pursuant to the aforementioned statutory processes. Work orders issued under this section of the policy shall be limited to those pertaining to construction projects and planning /study activities respectively and the respective limits set forth for each under Section 287.055.(2).g. Distribution of work orders under each fixed term contract shall be in accordance with the following procedures: 1. For work orders with an estimated value of $100K or less: a. Option 1 - the user department will choose a firm under contract to obtain a proposal and upon negotiation of a satisfactory cost, will award the work order to the selected firm. In the instance where the awarded contracts are broken into multiple groups of various disciplines or sub - disciplines, the user department may choose from the appropriate discipline /sub - discipline group, or; b. Option 2 - The user department may choose to utilize a competitive qualification (CQ) process to choose the most qualified firm for the project. 2. For work orders with an estimated value of more than $100K: a. Option 1 - the work orders will either be assigned on a rotation basis, or; b. Option 2 - The user department may choose to utilize a CQ process to choose the most qualified firm for the project. B. Definitions 1. For the purposes of this procedure, the definition of "Project Manager" shall be the person who is responsible for the work order project or task. 2. Although the Contract Specialist will be the person who is primarily responsible for the work order process, the definition of "Purchasing Professional" shall include a Contract Specialist, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing or Contract Technician or any other similar person within the Purchasing Department. C. Work Order Distribution 1. Rotation method 1.2 Work orders will be assigned on a rotation basis by their assigned contract specialist. The user department Project Manager will choose an appropriate discipline /sub - discipline and then contact their contract specialist for the name of the firm next up on the rotation. Agenda Item No. 16E12 July 27, 2010 Page 8 of 14 1.3 Waiver of rotation a. If the firm next up on rotation doesn't meet the project requirements or if there is a compelling need to use a different firm on the contract, the user department director must provide a written request for a waiver of rotation, and the reasons for the waiver request, and submit to the Purchasing and General Services Director for his review. b. Based on the review of the waiver request, the Purchasing and General Services Director shall have the discretion to waive the rotation process for valid business reasons. 2. Competitive Qualification process method 2.1 If the user department chooses to utilize a CQ process for the selection of firms under contract, the award of the work order is based upon an evaluation of qualitative considerations. 2.2 As a general rule, this method may be selected for any work order expected to exceed $100,000, but the CQ process can be used for any work orders estimated to be $100,000 or below at the discretion of the user department. 2.3 The required services will be solicited utilizing the e- procurement process as much as practicable, but solicitation by email, fax, or other means is also acceptable. 2.4 For each CQ, the assigned Project Manager shall provide the Purchasing Professional with the following information: A. Contract title(s') and number to be used for solicitation. B. A scope of services which includes a description of required work, preferably by task. At the option of the Project Manager, a work order may be issued to a consultant under contract to write a scope of services which will be disclosed in the CQ document. That consultant will not be allowed to submit on the subsequent CQ solicitation, so the recommended process is to choose a consultant under a different contract/discipline than the one being used for that particular CQ. C. A schedule for completion of each task(s). D. Identification of any special conditions associated with the project. E. Identification of CQ evaluation criteria and the respective weight of each criterion, (examples of qualification evaluation criteria categories are below in item 2.7). F. A project budget (to be included in CQ solicitation document). G. If permitting or other indefinite cost/scope items and /or activities are required, identify an allowance cost or state that the costs for that activity will be negotiated subsequent to selection of the top ranked firm. Note: If expertise in permitting is required, suggest adding evaluation criteria for permitting experience. �.genua Item No. SBE12 July 27, 2010 H. If CQ solicitation is complex and /or has technical aspects, the Purchasing Professional "will recommend a pre - solicitation meeting to Project Manager. I. In the event of a tie among two or more firms under consideration, the Project Manager shall select the firm with the lowest number of dollars of work with the County for the past two years. The project manager shall request that information from the Purchasing Professional. 2.5 In order to maximize competition and availability of resources, the Project Manager may choose to issue CQ solicitations under one or more existing contracts /disciplines, using the identical scope of services and evaluation criteria. A. The solicitations shall be issued simultaneously and a cross reference to each shall be included in the CQ solicitation documents. B. For work orders with an estimated value of $100K or less, the offers will be concurrently scored and ranked in accordance with item 2.17 below. C. For work orders with an estimated value of more than $100K, only one selection committee shall be convened for concurrent evaluation of proposals, and offers will be scored and ranked in accordance with item 2.13 below. 2.6 The Project Manager has the discretion to use any evaluation criteria deemed pertinent for the project in order to determine the most qualified firm for a particular work order assignment. Important: Price cannot be included as an evaluation criterion. 2.6.1 Following are representative examples of sample evaluation criteria and point values that could be used for CO solicitations: 1. Understanding of project and required deliverables (25 points) 2. Experience and expertise of assigned project staff (25 points) 3. Documented excellence in past performance on similar projects (25points) 4. Ability to meet required project schedule (25 points) Total available points = 100 2.7 The Project Manager will forward the evaluation criteria and weight of each criterion to the Purchasing Professional. 2.8 The Project Manager will forward scope and other information to Purchasing Professional 2.9 A selection committee of three will be required under the following conditions: 1. Multiple departments or agencies are involved, OR 2. Budget estimate for work order exceeds $100K, OR 3. Otherwise determined by Purchasing Director. 4. At the discretion of the Project Manager, a selection committee may be convened for work orders estimated to be $100K or below. 2.9.1 The Project Manager will send selection committee member names to the Purchasing Professional. The names of the selection committee members shall be included in the CQ solicitation. Agenda Item No. 16E12 July 27, 2010 Page 10 of 14 2.9.2 The date for the selection committee meeting should be determined by the Purchasing Professional and publicly posted at the time the CQ information is entered into the e- procurement system, and a meeting notice should be sent to the selection committee members. 2.10 Purchasing Professional shall enter the CQ information into the e- procurement system or other distribution method, and create the scoring forms (see attached Exhibit A -1). 2.10.1 Purchasing Professional will forward the completed CQ form to firms under contract for the appropriate categories. 2.10.2 Firms must provide the following information on their submitted response: 1. A resource allocation breakdown using a standard resource allocation spreadsheet. Information shall include the personnel categories per task. 2. List of materials, equipment, etc. required for each task along with applicable costs (no mark -up). 3. If applicable, estimate of allowable travel expenses per person per task (travel outside Lee and Collier County only). 2.11 Subsequent to the closing of CQ proposals, the Purchasing Professional shall perform a preliminary review of offers, confirming that required submittals were included. 2.12 The Purchasing Professional will forward responses and the scoring forms, along with any adverse preliminary review findings to the Project Manager. 2.12.1 The Purchasing Professional shall identify the date that the scoring forms are due back. (the due date will depend on how many responses are received, but generally will be within a week). 2.13 In accordance with Section 2.9 above, if a Selection Committee is required, or has been requested by the user department, the responses and the scoring forms will be sent to the selection committee members. 2.13.1 Selection committee members shall individually review and evaluate the scope; schedule, and resources allotted for the project based on the responses received, and prepare scores for each firm based on the CQ evaluation criteria. The subsequent ranking of the firms will be based on highest to lowest scores. 2.13.2 Tie Breakers: The Project Manager or selection committee members should break ties in scoring by recognizing a specifically higher qualitative difference in one or more categories and awarding extra points accordingly to that firm. Alternatively, give precedence to firm with lowest number of dollars of work with the County for the past two years. (this information must be requested of the Purchasing Professional by the Project Manager in accordance with item 2.4 (1), above). 2.13.3 The selection of the most qualified firm is primarily based on scoring and ranking numbers. Aoe -ida Item No. 16E12 July 27, 2010 2.14 The Purchasing Professional will compile the individual firm rankings to d- rrNnd 'fnnal ranking of firms. (see attached Exhibit A -2). Discussion should be required only if there is significant opposition to top ranked firm. The Project Manager shall have the final say in determination of top ranked firm. 2.15 Prior to finalizing the selection, the Purchasing Professional shall allow 5 minutes of comments from each member of the public who requests such time, prior to finalizing selection of firm. 2.16 The Purchasing Professional will send the final ranking form to the Project Manager and all respondents to the CQ. 2.17 For work orders with an estimated value of $100K or less; a selection committee is not required, the Project Manager reviews the responses, scores each firm, and determines the final ranking. The final ranking shall be submitted to the Purchasing Professional for review who will then send it to all respondents to the CQ. 2.18. Project Manager and Purchasing Professional shall work jointly to negotiate a fee for the services and fine tune details (if needed) with the top ranked firm. This would include, but not be limited to, negotiation of any allowance items for permitting, or indefinite cost /scope items or services, negotiation of resource allocation, and /or clarification of any other items or services related to the performance of the work. 2.19 If agreement cannot be reached with the top ranked firm, negotiations shall be terminated and negotiation will commence with the second ranked firm, and so on, until agreement is reached. D. Issuance of Work Order 1. Once negotiations have been completed, the Project Manager shall prepare the work order and attach the CQ backup (if applicable) or other appropriate documentation for requisition to be entered into SAP. 2. A Purchase Order/Work Order shall be issued to successful offeror. E. Protest Procedure 1. Any firm who was solicited under a specific CQ offer who desires to formally protest a recommended CQ award shall submit a notice of intent to protest to the Purchasing Director within two (2) calendar days, excluding weekends and County holidays, from the date of the selection of the top ranked firm. 2. Formal protests of the award shall be submitted in writing to the Purchasing Director for a decision. Said protests shall be submitted within five (5) calendar days, excluding weekends and County holidays, from the date that the notice of intent to protest is received by the Purchasing Director. 3. The formal protest shall contain, but not be limited to, the following information: a. The CQ number and title. b. The name, address and contact information of the protesting party. Agenda Item No. 16E12 July 27. 2010 Page 12 of 14 c. A brief overview of disputed issues. d. A concise statement of the facts alleged and of any relevant rules, regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions entitling the protesting party to relief. e. Such other information as the protesting party deems to be material to the issue 4. The Purchasing Director shall review each timely protest and shall issue a written decision stating the reasons for the decision. The decision of the Purchasing Director shall be final and not subject to appeal. 7 -15 -2010 ST Agen:a It:n No. 16E12 July 27, 2010 Page 1° of 14 1:7i117[I�Qi F;xE d Term Contract # 00 -0000 "Tit ;e CCNA COMPETITIVE QUALIFICATION (CQ) SCORING FORM NAME OF FIRM Understanding of project and required deliverables 25 points Experience and Expertise of Designated Project Staff 25 Points Documented i I Excellence in Previous Performance on Similar Jobs 25 Points j Ability to Meet Required Schedule 25 Points TOTAL 100 Points _ RANKING FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE THIRD PLACE Selection Committee Member's Signature Date 0 0 NCf7 LLJ N C - C m :n Q N O 0 0 O O 0 2t U C U N N x LL V z Y z J Q _z LL Q U z 0 F- u W J LU N Q U) _ W L X H LL LU CL O U LLI LL F- 0 U z 0 E- U W J W U) N 0 LL O Y izq 7 V7 LL O 1 x w ! w U m �a: znl LL O t Wwt 05 z a z m O c IY w S LU Q m J Z a i Z N 0 LL O W U C m ¢ y gJ� Zap Z n LL O u mw� c no Q 1 �a� Z M Q LL O U 0:w w U ? m ¢ Y J 2 Z N fk LL O U jr V 2 �L J z :Da a Z , Q� C LY LL LL O W Q z t, T a rn S Y O d U O CL E M L N d N C O o. x T a rn c Y C A d U t0 a E N L U N v H N C A a O x5 N U C Y1 O OI o. _c X Y T C a � N C N Y TO C N O 0 m .. m d L L N U y N T rna C aS E� T N a �O � N C 9 E dm -O 'y N � d U C �w rnd C L s � m J IY y ui 0 c O 'o Z o. O 0 7 7 C N I I 7 i �6 U` Z i i _m U) Z i I t, T a rn S Y O d U O CL E M L N d N C O o. x T a rn c Y C A d U t0 a E N L U N v H N C A a O x5 N U C Y1 O OI o. _c X Y T C a � N C N Y TO C N O 0 m .. m d L L N U y N T rna C aS E� T N a �O � N C 9 E dm -O 'y N � d U C �w rnd C L s � m J IY y ui 0 c O 'o Z o. O N 7 �6 U` Z _m U) Z m J O Q U- U1 2 Ll O d O) s= (6 .c L) Q O C a W = Li Ln F- t, T a rn S Y O d U O CL E M L N d N C O o. x T a rn c Y C A d U t0 a E N L U N v H N C A a O x5 N U C Y1 O OI o. _c X Y T C a � N C N Y TO C N O 0 m .. m d L L N U y N T rna C aS E� T N a �O � N C 9 E dm -O 'y N � d U C �w rnd C L s � m J IY y ui 0 c O 'o Z o.