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

states, " After review of all proposals and rating by the Evaluation Committee, the committee will rank, in order of preference, a short list of at least five ( 5) top proposers."' Selecting the top 5 proposers for presentation is common when awarding contracts to the top three ( 3) firms after presentation. The December 10, 2009 Selection Committee meeting minutes state,, "'Because of the tightness of the scoring between the top (9) proposals, they will each be scheduled to provide a presentation to the evaluation committee."  Mr. Rick Bowers January 14, 2010 Page 3 Selecting nine ( 9) firms to present when only awarding three ( 3) firms a contract is uncommon. Based on the City' s presentation scoring method and overall ranking method by adding the written submittal and presentation scores together, most every team that submitted had a mathematical opportunity to be ranked in the top three, making the nine firins selected for presentation subjective." Section 61 of the RFQ states, " The Evaluation Committee will ' short-list" a minimum of fivefirms that best meet the City' s needs based upon its evaluation ofall o' the proposals. This gives the Committee discretion over the number offirms on the " short-list. " At the Evaluation Committee meeting on December 10, 2009, it was determined that, due to the closeness ofthe scoring after the Proposal stage, it would be in the best interest ofthe City and the bidders to short-list the top nine (9) firms. Whether or not this practice is considered " common"' and "' uncommon" is a su1jective opinion riot shared by the City, not supported by objective data, crud, as such, has no merit I concur. This " observation!' contains nothing of substance and is merely an opinion of the Vendor.) The Purchasing Division is confident that the evaluation and rankings for RFQ 10- 002, General Consulting Services, is not flawed. It is my recommendation to deny this protest. Based on the Purchasing Agent' s recommendation, and my review of the RFQ and the Inquiry, I find that the City acted properly in recommending awarding RF--Q 10- 002, General Consulting Services, to Hatch Mott MacDonald, CH2M Hill and Goodwyn, Mills and Cawood. I have found the Inquiry to be without substance and nothing more than a series of vendor opinions, which does not warrant the status of a Vendor Protest. The Vendor Protest is denied as being unfounded. Sinc Pbert T. Mearns City Manager CC: Agent; Brandy "quaker, Finance Director; Michael Beedie, William Worlds, Purchasing Agent; Engineering Services Director; Mayor and City Council Attached: 1. Purchasing Agent' s Recommendation 2. Excerpt from Purchasing Policies and Procedures 3. E-Mail from Cardno TBE dated January 12, 2010  City of dart Walton Beach MEMORANDUM CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH Memorandum TO: Robert Mearns, City Manager TEIRU Brandy Wunker, Finance Director FROM: William Worlds, Purchasing Agent R.E Request for Qualifications 10 -002 Protest MATE: January 14, 2010 A bid protest was received via email on January 12, 2010, from Cardno TB.E regarding the award. of Request for Qualifications No. 10 -002 for General Consulting Services. After carefully examining the protest, the original solicitation, and the contents of the bid file, it is my recommendation that the Bid: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. 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 sunts of the total weighted ratings assigned by the .Evaluation Committee were used. However, after fie- calculating the scores to obtain the average of the total weighted ratings as stated in the ITB), there was no change in the ranking order ofthe bidders. Although the average of the scores were not used in either the Proposal or Presentation 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. 2) " It is unclear in 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 weight for each Proposal .Evaluation Criteria is clearly indicated in the bid document. These individual weights, for Proposals, when summed, equal 100,°/. The evaluation weight for Presentations is clearly indicated in the bid document as 25 %. The combined weightfor both Proposals and Presentations is therefore 125%. l,J  This was discussed at the Pre -Bid Conference, and it was stated that the scores would be combined. This is similar to other RFQs the City has issued. 3) " Section 6.'3 SHORT LIST of the RFQ states, " Afterr review of all proposals and rating by the Evaluation Committee, the committee will rank, in order of preference, a short list of at least five (5) top proposers." Selecting the top 5 proposers for presentation is common when awarding contracts to the top three ( 3) firms after presentation. The December 10, 2009 Selection Committee meeting minutes state, " Because of the tightness of the scoring between the top ( 9) proposals, they will each be scheduled to provide a presentation to the evaluation committee." Selecting nine ( 9) firms to present when only awarding three ( 3) firms a contract is uncommon. Based on the City' s presentation scoring method and overall ranking method by adding the written submittal and presentation scores together, most every team that submitted had a mathematical opportunity to be ranked in the top three, making the nine firms selected for presentation subjective." Section 6.1 of the RFQ states, " The evaluation Committee will `short -list' a minimum of five firms that best meet the City' s needs based upon its evaluation ofall ofthe proposals." This gives the Committee discretion over the number offirms on the " short -list. At the Evaluation Committee meeting on December 10, 2009, it was determined that, due to the closeness of the scoring after the Proposal stage, it would be in the best interest of the City and the bidders to short -list the top nine (9) firms. Whether or not this practice is considered " common " and " uncommon is a subjective opinion not shared by the City, not supported by objective data, and, as such, has no merit. The Purchasing Division is confident that the evaluation and rankings for RFQ 10 -002, General Consulting Services, is not flawed. It is my recommendation to deny this protest. Page 2 3. 1 0. Public Records and Competitive Solicitation 3. 10. 1. 1TB' s are subject to the public records law and will be made available as such immediately upon opening of the bids received b the City. 3. 10.2. RFP' s and RFC' s are subject to the public records law and w' be made available as such ten ( 10) days after: opening the p posal received or upon award of the solicitation, whichever occur first. 3. 11, Exceptions to Competitive Solicitation Requirements 3. 11. 1. Emergency Purchases, as previously defined in this Po " Y. 3.' 11. 1. 1. If such purchase exceeds $ 20,000, a fu report of the circumstances of the emergency purch e shall be placed on the next regulaer City Council eeting _agenda for ratification. 3. 11. 2. Contracts for professional services invo ing a particular skill, ability, experience or expertise, which ar n their nature unique. 3. 11. 3. Non -Competitive purchases ( Sole S urce) supplies or services, available only from one source, uch as unique, patented, or franchised supplies, as defined by is Policy. 3. 11. 4. No qualified bids received fter public advertisement of a bid p / roposal.. 3. 1` 1. 5. Unique circumstances in City Council finds that which the competitive bidding is no in the best interest ofthe City. 3. 11. 6. Circumstances in whi the City Council finds that using formal written contracts or ompetitive solicitations of other governmental entities is in the b t interest of the City. 3. 11. 7. Situations of c as defined by this Policy, perativve procurements, whereby pro cement may be made, subject to the purchasing authorities dined in this Policy. 3. 11. 8. Supplies materials, equipment and services included as a State Conti as set forth in F. S. 287, as amended from time to time, or wi e United States Government. 3. 11. 9. C tracts in which the City elects to piggyback, as defined by this olicy. 3. 11. 1 Local utility services for City owned and operated facilities. 3. 11AL Other waivers as approved by City Council. 3A. 12. Under other documented and justified circumstances approved by the City Manager or the City Council. 3. 1 Vendor protest: 3. 12. 1. Bidders or respondants who do not agree with the City Council' s recommendation for award are afforded the opportunity to protest the recommendation by submitting written notice to the Purchasing Division within five ( 5) business days after notice of award or after the date the petitioners could reasonably be expected to have known of the City' s recommendation. 3. 12. 2. The written notice must state the grounds for the protest and the action requested.  3. 12. 3. The Purchasing Division will conduct a review of the protest and submit a written response to the City Manager recommending either denial or