Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 01-26-2010 Regular — reading text

1. A predecessor or successor of a person convicted of a public entity crime; or 2. An entity under the control of any natural person who is active in the management of the entity and who has been convicted of a public entity crime. The tern "affiliate" includes those officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, and agents who are active in the management of an affiliate. The ownership by one of shares constituting a controlling income among persons when not for fair interest in another person, or a pooling of equipment or income among persons when not for fair market value under a length agreement, shall be a prima facie case that one person controls another person. A person who was Knowingly convicted of a public entity crime, in Florida during the preceding 36 months shall be considered an affiliate. Page 22 148-  RFQ NO. 10 -002, CITY OF FT. WALTON BEACH, PRE -QUALIFICATION FOR GENERAL CONSULTING SERVICES Public Entity Crimes Statement 7. 1 understand that a " person" as defined in Paragraph 287. 133( 1)( e), Florida Statutes, means any natural person or entity organized under the laws of the state or of the United States with the legal power to enter into a binding contract for provision of goods or services let by a public entity, or which otherwise transacts or applies to transact business with a public entity. The term " person" includes those officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, and agents who are active n management of an entity. 8. Based on information and belief, the statement which I have marked below is true in relation to the entity submitting this sworn statement. ( Please indicate which statement applies) Neither the entity submitting this sworn statement, nor any officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, or agents who are active in management of the entity, nor affiliate of the entity have been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. The entity submitting this sworn statement, or one or more of the officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, or agents who are active in management of the entity or an affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. ( please attach a copy of the final order) The person or affiliate was placed on the convicted vendor list. There has been a subsequent proceeding before a hearing officer of the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings. The final order entered by the hearing officer determined that it was in public interest to remove the person or affiliate from the convicted vendor list. ( Please attach a copy of the final order) The person or affiliate has not been placed on the convicted vendor list. ( Please describe any action taken by, or pending with, the Department of General Services.) Signature) Date: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, who, after first being swom by me, affixed his /her signature at the space provided above on this day of , 2009, and is personally known to me, or has provided as identification. Notary Public My Commission expires: Page 23 149-  CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOTICE TO BIDDERS RFQ NUMBER: 10 -002 October 29, 2009 The City of Fort Walton Beach will accept sealed. proposals at City Hall on Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 2: 30 p.m., local time, for the following: Pre- Qualification for General Consulting Services" Copies of Provisions, Proposal Forms, and Specifications may be requested via e- mail, fwbpurch _,fwb.o_g, fax (850) 833 -9643 or call the Purchasing Division at (850) 833 -9523. Additional technical information relative to this proposal may be obtained from Mr. William Worlds, Purchasing Agent, at ( 850) 833 -9523 during normal business hours. The City of Fort 'Walton Beach reserves the right to waive informalities in any proposal; to make award(s) by individual item, group of items, all or none, or a combination thereof; to reject any and all proposals or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in proposals received, that in its judgment will be in the best interest of the City of Fort Walton Beach. Mark outside of envelope: RFO 10 -002 Pre- Oualitication for General Consulting Services" A non -mandatory Pre -Proposal Meeting will be held on November 17, 2009 at 10: 00 a. m. in the Purchasing Conference Room at 143 Hollywood Boulevard NW. Note: Any proposer failing to mark the outside of the envelope, as set forth herein may not be entitled to have his proposal considered. Address responses to: FOR MAIL DELIVERY FOR HAND/EXPRESS MAIL/UPS DELIVERY City Clerk City Clerk City of Fort Walton Beach City of Fort Walton Beach P. O. Box 4009 107 Miracle Strip Parkway SW Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549 Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548 Page 24 150-  9,/ America' s Most Beautiful Beaches 107 Miracle Strip Parkway, SW * P. U. Box 4009 * Fort Walton Beach, Fl 32549 850) 833- 9504 * Fax ( 850) 833- 9640 www.Avb.2rg rDD ( 850) 833- 9925 Robert T. Mear is January 14, 2010 City Atanager rmearn,9(q_:,) ivb.org Mr. Rick Bowers, P.E. GIST Director of GIS Asset Management 380 Park Place Blvd., Suite 300 Clearwater, FL 33759 Re: Vendor Protest to Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 10- 002 —General Consulting Services Dear Mr. Bowers: You have made a formal Vendor Protest of the City' s RFQ award to Hatch Mott MacDonald, CH2M Hill and Goodwyn, Mills and Cawood for General Consulting Services. In. accordance with the City of Ft. Walton Beach Administrative Policy Fin — 09, Section 3. 12, Vendor Protest, you made a request for formal evaluation which I have deemed to be a Vendor Protest. The Vendor Protest was initially made via e-mail on December 24, 2009, with a follow-up request received January 12, 2010 that included an additional " observation." In accordance with the City' s Purchasing Policy, the City' s Purchasing Agent prepared and submitted a written determination of the RFQ protest, which is attached. An. RFQ protest was received via email on January 12, 2010, from Cardno TBE regarding the award of RFQ No. 10- 002 for General Consulting Services. After carefully examining the protest, the original solicitation, and the contents of the RFQ file, it is my recommendation that the Vendor Protest be denied, as it is unfounded. The following items are specific issues that Cardno, TBE broached in their protest. The Purchasing Division' s response is italicized following each issue. ( My response follows that of the Purchasing Agent.) 1) " Section 6.4 of the RFQ states " The average of the Total Weighted Ratings assigned by the Evaluation Committee members will be used." It does not appear averages were used in the presentation score computation. Instead, it appears the scores were merely summed. Please explain." The sums of the total weighted ratings assigned by the Evaluation Committee were used However, qfler re-calculating the scores to obtain the average ofthe total weighted ratings as stated in the RFQ), there was no change in the ranking order ofthe bidders.  Mr. Rick Bowers January 14, 2010 Page 2 Although the average of the scores were not used in either the Proposal orPresentation original score computations, the method of calculation was consistent across the board Regardless ofwhether or not the sum or the average is used, the ranking order is the same. I concur. Mathematically the order will be identical since the sum of an equal amount of numbers compared to another sum of an equal amount of numbers, divided by a constant would by definition have the same order. While the mathematical operation may have differed and may be considered an irregularity, the end result of either mathematical method had no effect on the outcome, which is exactly what the process was intended to accomplish. Section 4.5, ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION/ MODIFICATION TO PROPOSALS, of the Request For Qualifications states that " the City reserves the right to negotiate modifications to proposals that it deems acceptable, reject any and all proposals,, and to waive minor irregularities in the procedures ". [ Emphasis added]) 2) "' It is unclear the RFQ how the proposal scores ( on a 0-5 scale) and presentation scores on a 0- 10 scale) will be combined. The assigned weights would suggest the intention was for the proposal to be 75% and presentation to be 25% of the Total Final Weighted Score. It would not appear appropriate to simply add the section scores without adjustment,, since they are on different scales. Please explain." The assigned weightfor each Proposal Evaluation Criteria is clearly indicated in the RFQ document. These individual weights, for Proposals, when summed, equal 100yo. The evaluation weightfor Presentations is clearly indicated in the RFQ document as 25o. The combined weight or both Proposals and Presentations is therefore 125916. This was discussed at the Pre-RFQ Conference, and it was stated that the scores would be combined This is similar to other RFQs the City has issued I concur. The term " suggestion" is clearly a perception and/or matter of opinion and is contrary to the plain language of the RFQ. One need only total the Assigned Weight percentage numbers and the sum always is 1.00%. The Presentation Assigned Weight adds another 25% for a Total Final Weighted score of 125%.) 3) " Section 6.3 SHORT LIST of the RFQ