Loading...
Agenda 06/23/2009 Item #10F Agenda Item No. 10F June 23, 2009 Page 1 of 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Report to the Board regarding the results and impacts to date of the County's Local Vendor Preference policy and recommendations regarding the consideration of location in the evaluation of CCNA contracts. OBJECTIVE: To update the Board as to the results and impacts of the County's local preference policy to date and to receive direction from the Board as to how proceed with the policy. CONSIDERATIONS: On June 10, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a local vendor preference policy. The policy was implemented by the Board in an effort to support the local economy during difficult economic times. The policy has been generally applied to purchases transacted under the invitation to bid (ITB) and request for proposals (RFP) processes (except for services subject to the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act). The policy has also been applied to the informal price quotation process. Under Section XI.(7) of the County's purchasing policy, the Purchasing Department is to provide the Board with an update of the results and impacts of this policy on or about one year after commencement of the policy. Pursuant to that direction, enclosed is a report summarizing purchase order, ITB and RFP activity over the last four years. The report includes information regarding the participation of local vendors in the County's competitive processes and the distribution of work to local firms during that time. Staff has reviewed the data from the first year of the local vendor preference policy and noted the following: ~ Vendor participation (# of local and out of town firms competing for County work) has increased over the past two years. ~ It is not clear as to what degree the preference policy has contributed to this increase as participation rates were generally higher or increasing at least one year prior to the commencement of the policy. ,. Purchasing staff has surveyed more than 200 vendors who were invited to, but elected not to submit bid offers. Of the 113 who responded to our survey, 15 (or 13%) indicated that the local vendor preference policy was the reason why they chose not to bid. ~ To date, the policy has directly altered the outcome of 4 of 96 ITB awards, 2 of 32 RFP awards and 1 informal quote outcome. - ~ The policy as presently configured has not been effective in promoting local participation for informal competition (purchases between $3,000-$50,000). Agenda Item No. 10F June 23, 2009 Page 2 of 9 Staff is requesting Board direction as to how to proceed with the policy at this time. Among the options to be considered include the following: 1. Continue the program "as is" with no changes at this time; or 2. "Sunset" the program for all future contracts; or 3. Continue the policy for ITB and RFP-based contracts, but consider alternative strategies for purchases procured under informal competition. At the Board meeting of June 9, 2009, Board members requested that staff bring back language that would amend the current purchasing policy regarding the evaluation of location in the award of contracts subject to the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (or "CCNA"). In response to that request, staff has drafted two policy language options for the Board to consider. Option 1 would be to amend Section XI of the purchasing policy to remove the exemption of CCNA services from the local preference policy. Accordingly, all CCNA-related solicitations would be treated similarly as all other RFPs presently where firms that meet the definition and are otherwise qualified as "local" would receive 10 points on a 100 point scale for location. ..."'~ Option 2 would be to amend Section VII.C of the policy to state that the local preference criterion be inserted into the recently-instituted best value offer process where permitted by federal or state funding requirements. This would mean that location would be consistently considered for the award of all work orders for professional services where no restrictions on local preference exist. In instances where the funding source prohibits the use of local preference criterion, this criterion could be easily excluded from the selection process. In evaluating the two options, the Board needs to consider the following potential circumstances associated with the issue of economic development and stimulus: '" County staff is pursuing the receipt of federal funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As of the writing, the County has been awarded more than $3.5 Million in funds for various capital infrastructure projects and is applying for funds for several others. '" Should the County be awarded federal funds for new projects, the County may not be able to use existing or future professional service contracts for these services if local preference was a factor in the original award of those contracts and if the given funding program prohibits the use of local preference in the selection process. - .,.. This would require the County to procure professional services for these projects "from scratch", which staff anticipates would take 4-5 months to complete. The grant agreement schedule for any given project might not allow sufficient time to procure both these services and the subsequent construction services, thereby jeopardizing the funding for these projects. Agenda Item No. 10F June 23. 2009 Page 3 of 9 )0> Additionally, the County could encounter the same problems with obtaining FEMA reimbursement for contracts used for disaster preparedness and disaster response activities. If the Board is inclined to extend local preference to CCNA contracts, staff would recommend the use of Option 2 as it is more flexible and enables staff to manage potential federal restrictions. The adoption of a broad based local preference policy for CCNA contracts (Option 1) could put the County at risk of losing federal stimulus funding and other federal reimbursement funds. FISCAL IMPACT: None. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact on the Growth Management Plan. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Local vendor preference may be a consideration under 287.055, F.S. The proposed language for Options 1 and 2 is legally sufficient. This item is not quasi judicial, no ex parte communication is required, requires majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners accept the enclosed report and directs staff as to how to proceed regarding the future status of the County's local vendor preference policy. PREPARED BY: Steve Carnell, Purchasing/General Services Director. - Page 1 of I Agenda Item No. 10F June 23, 2009 Page 4 of 9 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: Item Summary: 10F Meeting Date: Report to the Board concerning the results and Impacts of the Local Vendor Preference Policy and recommendations regarding the use of location in the evaulation of CCNA contracts. (Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director) 6/23/200990000 AM Approved By Steve Carnell Administrative Services Purchasing/General Svcs Director Purchasing Date 6/16/2009 11 :27 AM Approved By Steve Carnell Administrative Services Purchasing/General Svcs Director Purchasing Date 6/16/2009 11 :27 AM Approved By Colleen Greene County Attorney Assistant County Attorner County Attorney Office Date 6/16/200911 :38 AM Approved By OMS Coordinator OMS Coordinator Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 6/16/2009 12:00 PM Approved By Leo E. Ochs, Jr. Board of County Commissioners Deputy County Manager Date County Manager's Office 6/17/2009 9:25 AM file://C:\AgendaTest\Export\ 1 32-June%2023,%202009\ I 0.%20COUNTY%20MANAGER... 6/17/2009 ..----..--'-..' ..----.-." Agenda Item NO.1 OF June 23, 2009 Page 5 of 9 OPTION 1 XI. PROCEDURE TO PROVIDE PREFERENCE TO LOCAL BUSINESSES IN COUNTY CONTRACTS (2)(b) Request for proposals, qualifications or other submittals and competitive negotiation and selection. For all purchases of commodities and services procured through the Competitive Proposals (Section VI) or Competitive Selection and Negotiation (Section VIII) methods not otherwise exempt from this local preference section, the RFP solicitation shall include a weighted criterion for local preference that equals 10 percent of the total points in the evaluation criteria published in the solicitation. Purchases of professional services as defined and identified under El:I9&eGtion VII.B.2 (which 3r-9 &ubject to Section 287.955, F.S.) ::lR8 subsection VII.B.3 (which are subject to Section 11.45, F.S.) shall not be subject to this local preference section. OPTION 2 VII. PROCUREMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. C. Requests exclusively for services defined under VII.B.2 will be procured in a manner consistent with Section 287.055, F.S., known as 'The Consultant's Competitive Negotiation Act" as required by said statute. Projects may include, but are not strictly limited to one or more of the following: 1. Fixed assiQnment contracts: A grouping of minor professional service (including construction inspection services) assignments. 2. Fixed term contracts: Countywide agreements for various and miscellaneous minor professional services (including construction inspection services) on an as needed basis. 3. General Professional Services: Includes administration, support and management of engineering, architectural, surveying and planning activities. Prior to issuing a work order under a contract identified under Section VII.C.1-3, the Director shall have the discretion to solicit project or task specific proposals from one firm or from multiple firms under a fixed term contract. In such instances, each solicitation shall be issued on a "best value" basis where qualifications and price are considered. Each solicitation shall include at minimum a description of work to be performed and the criteria to be used to evaluate each proposal. For all "best value" based solicitations, price shall not exceed 50 percent of the total evaluation criteria. Each best value offer solicitation shall contain a criterion for location, pursuant to its intended use under Section 287.055(4)(b) F.S. which shall not exceed 10 percent of the total evaluation criteria. Agenda Item NO.1 OF June 23, 2009 Page 6 of 9 LOCALVENDORPREFERENCEPOUCY RESULTS AND IMPACTS TO DATE JUNE, 2009 OVERVIEW The following are various data collected by the Purchasing Department pertaining to the distribution of County purchases by location over the last four years. The data are broken into three groups: 1. ALL PURCHASE ORDERS: Includes the total of all encumbrances issued by fiscal year to vendors located in Collier County, Lee County or all other locations over the last four years. 2. INVITA TlONS TO BID (ITBs): Includes a summary of the average number of bidders competing under each ITS, a breakdown of the participating bidders by location and a breakdown of ITS awards by location over the last three and a half years. 3. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFPs): Includes a summary of the average number of competing firms ("proposers") submitting proposals under each RFP, a breakdown of the proposers by location and a breakdown of RFP awards by location over last three and a half years. ALL PURCHASE ORDERS (PERCENTAGE OF DOLLARS) Fiscal Year Collier Lee Other 2006 32.2% 9.7% 58.1% 2007 45.6% 6.3% 48.0% 2008 40.6% 10.9% 48.5% 3 YR AVERAGE 39.7% 8.8% 51.5% 2009 46.7% 10.9% 42.5% LVP TO DATE 48.1% 10.0% 41.9% Summary: .,. The % of dollars to Collier businesses grew dramatically in 2007 (prior to implementing the LVP) .,. That same % went down in 2008, but has gone back up in 2009 to date Agenda Item NO.1 OF June 23, 2009 Page 7 of 9 INVITATION TO BID (lTB) ACTIVITY PARTlCIPA TlON RA TE (BIDDERS PER ITB): Fiscal Year # of Bidders # of ITBs Average # of Issued Bidders 2006 297 91 3.3 2007 354 87 4.1 2008 297 57 5.2 3 YR AVERAGE 316 78 4.0 2009 TO DATE 509 74 6.9 LVP TO DATE 610 96 6.4 Summary: ~ Average # of bidders has grown steadily since 2007 DISTRIBUTION OF BIDDERS BY LOCA TlON: Fiscal Year Collier Lee Other 2006 36.4% 21.9% 41.8% 2007 40.4% 22.9% 36.7% 2008 42.7% 26.1% 31.1% 3 YR AVERAGE 40.1% 23.8% 36.0% 2009 TO DATE 42.0% 25.5% 32.4% LVP TO DATE 42.4% 24.3% 33.3% Summary: y % of bidders from Collier and Lee have steadily increased since 2006 y % of bidders from other counties has corresponding decreased during that same time DISTRIBUTION OF BID AWARDS BY LOCA TION: Fiscal Year Collier Lee Other 2006 31.4% 20.1% 48.6% 2007 43.0% 25.2% 31.9% 2008 37.4% 19.2% 43.4% 3 YR AVERAGE 36.3% 21.5% 42.2% 2009 TO DATE 40.2% 32.2% 27.6% LVP TO DATE 39.7% 26.7% 33.6% Summary: y % of awards to Collier and Lee vendors has fluctuated year to year y The highest % year for Collier vendors was 2007 Agenda Item No. 10F June 23, 2009 Page 8 of 9 REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS (REPs) ACTIVITY (NON-CCNA) PARTlCIPA TlON RA TE (# PROPOSERS PER RFP): Fiscal Year # of Proposers # of RFPs Average # of Issued Proposers 2006 269 48 5.6 2007 201 43 4.7 2008 210 38 5.5 3 YR AVERAGE 227 43 5.3 LVP TO DATE 272 32 8.5 Summary: y # of firms competing has risen dramatically within the past year PERCENTAGE OF ALL PROPOSERS BY LOCATION: Fiscal Year Collier Lee Other 2006 25.2% 23.0% 51.9% 2007 15.9% 19.4% 64.7% 2008 24.8% 19.5% 55.7% 3 YR AVERAGE 22.3% 20.9% 56.8% 2009 TO DATE 38.5% 25.4% 36.7% LVP TO DATE 32.2% 24.2% 43.6% Summary: y % of Collier firms has risen within the past year PERCENTAGE OF A WARDEES: Fiscal Year Collier Lee Other 2006 29.1% 22.2% 48.7% 2007 13.6% 15.3% 71.2% 2008 33.9% 25.8% 40.3% 3 YR AVERAGE 26.5% 21.4% 52.1% 2009 TO DATE 30.0% 30.0% 40.0% LVP TO DATE 30.2% 20.9% 48.8% Summary: y % of awards to Collier firms in FY 09 to date is higher than the average for each of the previous three fiscal years. Agenda Item NO.1 OF June 23, 2009 Page 9 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY RESOLUTION 2008-181, THE COUNTY'S PURCHASING POLICY TO ADDRESS THE APPLICATION OF LOCATION IN THE EVALUATION OF CCNA CONTRACTS. WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance 87-25 provides for the establishment of a purchasing policy to govern all aspects of purchasing administration; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution 2008-181 on June 10, 2008, setting forth its purchasing policy and in doing so, establishing a local vendor preference policy; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to amend the purchasing policy to formally recognize the value of a qualified local vendor presence in contracts subject to The Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act ("CCNA"), section 287.055, Fla. Stat. as set forth in the attached modified policy language. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Resolution 2008-181 as presently constituted, is hereby amended by this Resolution and shall serve to amend the Purchasing Policy attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as directed by the Board of County Commissioners.. This Resolution adopted this _ day of second and majority vote favoring same. , 2009 after motion, ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Deputy Clerk By: Donna Fiala, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Colleen Greene Assistant County Attorney