Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/1992, C-10 - PROPOSED RFP PROCESS FOR NEW HEADQUARTERS FIRE STATION/RECREATION ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGcity of Sap WIS OBI SPO Meeting Date: 1/7/92 fimvftftA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT -x+em: C —1 O From: Robert Neumann, Fire Chief,' Prepared By: Erwin Willis, Battalion Chief Subject: Proposed RFP process for new Headquarters Fire Station /Recreation Administration Building CAO RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed RFP process and direct Staff to initiate the procedure of retaining architectural services for the design of the Headquarters Fire Station /Recreation Administration Building. DISCUSSION: Background At the October 22, 1991, City Council meeting, Council directed staff to develop a recommendation for a new RFP process for the design and engineering services for new Headquarters Fire Station /Recreation Administration Building. The intent was to give preference to local architectural firms. In reviewing the existing City "Purchasing Control Procedures ", a local preference is already available "when all other factors, such as quality, price, and service are equal" (Attachments 1 and 2). However, under these current procedures, the term "local" is broadly defined and difficult to apply. The remainder of this report outlines issues and recommendations for a more clearly defined "local preference approach" which still retains the principles of competition as the primary element of the City's purchasing and contracting practices. In addition, the report offers a specific approach to a new RFP process for fire station design that responds to other concerns expressed by the Council (e.g., experience of the selection panel, etc.) . Follow -Up In addition to researching existing procedures, the CAO directed Staff to contact other jurisdictions, as well as the local and state American Institute of Architects (AIA), to gather information on how to best carry out Council's direction. These contacts were made and are summarized below. Seven jurisdictions were contacted: Santa Barbara City and County; Thousands Oaks; San Luis Obispo County; Kern County; Orange County; and Monterey. We found that none of the jurisdictions have a "local only" policy for architectural services. The only exception that we found to this was Orange County, who on smaller projects only sends RFPs out to architectural firms in their county. San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties stated that they do give a "preference" to local architects provided that they are as qualified as non -local architects. The remaining jurisdictions, Santa Barbara City, Monterey, Kern County and Thousands Oaks award contracts strictly based on the best qualified firm. "���►�hIII���II�IU city of San tins OBISPO N 99000 ii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 Staff contacted the California Council of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) at both the State and local levels. The Chairman of the central coast chapter of the AIA, Allen Cooper, indicated that the local AIA feels that preference should be given only in a situation when a local company is equally qualified as an outside firm. As noted above, this is consistent with provisions in the City's existing Purchasing Control Manual. At the State level, the position is held that an architect should be hired solely on the basis of his /her "demonstrated competence and professional qualifications "; not on their office location. A concern Staff discovered when considering giving "local" preference was determining who will be considered "local ". Will an Architectural firm that has an office in the City be considered local even if the principals in the firm live outside the City? How will an Architect who lives in the City but has an office in an adjoining city be classified? What if the office and the Architect are both just outside of the City limits? Does having a small branch office in the City make a large firm, with the majority of its operations elsewhere, local? Since a major portion of the architectural fees are for sub - contractors, should the City also require that only local sub - contractors be used? Proposed RFP Process Based on the above, Staff has developed a proposed RFP process that would not restrict who can respond to the RFP, but would give a preference to "local" firms in two ways. First, one of the rating categories will be "familiarity with local area geography, facilities, and approval processes ". Firms which have worked extensively in this area should receive higher scores in this category, thereby giving them an advantage over "non- local" companies. Second, in the case where two firms are equally qualified and one of the firms is "local ", the City will select the local firm. This is consistent with an existing provision in the City's purchasing guidelines; however, the revised process will provide a definition of what should be considered "local ". The proposed process (see attached) is very similar to the system that has been successfully used for several years by Santa Barbara County. And, while this process is not "local only ", it puts the City in a more tenable position than a process that restricts applicants by the location of their office. Under a "local only" restriction an argument could be made that by not evaluating all architects, the City would not be receiving the most benefit from tax dollars spent. The Finance Department is currently in the process of updating the Purchasing Control Manual, and the local preference provisions in the manual will be clarified consistent with this approach. C-Yo _C;- ����►i��lllllll�p��" °9�I�N city of San tins OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT No significant impact, other than staff time, will be needed to develop and implement a new RFP process. ALTERNATIVES 1) Approve a "local preference" process for future RFP's but accept the number one firm (Grant, Pedersen, Phillips) from the last RFP process. Under the new proposed "local preference" process, the firm of Grant, Pedersen and Phillips would more than likely have done very well. They hire extensively from the local area and are very familiar with local geography, facilities, and approval processes. The firm's presentation was excellent and the detailed renderings of the local site were very impressive. However, the Council may wish to initiate a new RFP process to allow other firms to submit proposals under the revised approach outlined in this report. 2) Do not approve the "local preference" process and direct Staff to bring back a process that more severely limits our selection options based on location. This alternative is not recommended due to the selection being based on the location of the firm's office rather than the firm's qualification to provide design services for a building on a very sensitive site. Additionally, the state and local AIA's do not support this type of selection - limiting process. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 and 2 Excerpts from Current Purchasing Control Procedures Attachment 3 Proposed RFP Process C -10 -3 PURCHASING CONTROL "OCEDURES lil 1H1.[]L'JGLV 1 jr 1 PC— 202 - 1 section: Vendors and Suppliers - subject: Selection of Lowest Evaluation and Quality Assurance Responsible Bidder follow established criteria and procedures. If this highly sensitive stage of the purchasing cycle is left to an informal process which relies on individual judgment, the system is open to many pressures and inconsistencies which can improperly influence awards. Written guidelines will not eliminate the need for professional judgment. They do, however, express the rationale, consistency, and documentation that support the process. Selecting the "lowest responsible bidder" is a multiphase evaluation. It is precisely at this stage of purchasing that the underlying concepts that foster competition - offering the most equitable means of obtaining quality goods and services at fair and reasonable prices - will be asserted. The purchasing ordinance defines some criteria, in addition to price, to be used in determining the lowest responsible bidder. The evaluation should consider, but not be limited to, the following: - The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the bidder (this may include an analysis of previous work performed for the city) . - The ability of the bidder to perform the contract, or provide the supplies, equipment or services required, within the time specified, without delay or interference. - The ability of the bidder to provide future maintenance, repair parts and replacement of purchased equipment or supplies. - Compliance by the bidder with federal acts, executive orders and State of California statutes governing nondiscrimination in employment. - The results of any evaluation relating performance to price, such as product testing, life -cycle costing, and analysis of service, maintenance and technical data. Preference may be given to suppliers who maintain places of business within the city, or vicinity, only when all other factors, such as quality, price and service are equal. Although the support of local businesses is valued and desired, the practice of giving preference is argued to be in direct conflict with the principles of competition, thereby precluding the purchaser from obtaining the best competitive price. Therefore, it can only be considered a valid practice when it is used to break tie bids. c -io -�- PURCHASING CONTROL '"OCEDURES section: Purchasing Procedures - Professional Services PC— 402 - 1 subject: Contracting for Professional Services The services in this category include all specialized professional services such as attorneys, architects, engineers, management consultants, and technical consultants, when the fee for such services is in excess of $10,000. Because of the substantial expenditure involved, the City Council has prescribed a formal selection and contracting process. All contracts shall be developed and approved in accordance with the following process unless otherwise specified by the City Council. A. The Project Manager will prepare a Request For Proposals which, after -City Administrative Officer review and approval, will be sent to professionals capable of conducting the project. B. Upon receipt of proposals from the professionals, the Project Manager will make an analysis and recommend to the City Administrative Officer those firms and /or individuals that warrant further evaluation by interview. C. A three- person committee, consisting of the City Administrative Officer, the Department Head responsible for developing the project, and the Department Head responsible for the project after completion (or their designated representatives), will interview the selected professionals. The committee will consider, among other factors, the experience and capability of each firm and /or individual, but will = consider fees. Local professionals who maintain fully staffed offices in the city, or 11 vicinity, shall be given preference if quality, service and all other relevant factors are equal. D. Upon completion of the interviews, the committee will rank the proposals, and the Project Manager will submit a report, with a recommended priority list of professionals, to the City Council. The City Council, at a regular meeting, will review the report and authorize staff to negotiate a formal contract with one of the professionals. E. The Project Manager will negotiate with the first designated professional regarding time schedules, scope of work, fees, and all other matters relating to the preparation of a contract document. If agreement is reached, a formal contract will be drafted. If agreement is not reached, negotiations will be discontinued, and the Project Manager will negotiate with the next designated professional on the priority list. This process will be repeated until agreement is reached with a capable professional C -/o S 5 ATTACHMENT #3 Headquarters Fire Station /Recreation Administration Building Proposed RFP Process 1. The resumes from the firms responding to the RFP will be reviewed by a four member panel consisting of a representative from the following organizations: A. Cal Poly School of Architecture B. Central Coast Chapter of the AIA C. San Luis Obispo City Public Works Department, Engineering Division D. San Luis Obispo City Fire Department. 2. Ratings of the resumes will be done independently and a numerical value will be assigned to each of the firms. Ratings will be based on the following criteria: A. Familiarity with local area geography, facilities, and approval processes B. Experience in designing large civic buildings C. Size of firm is adequate to handle project D. Experience in designing civic buildings on sensitive sites E. Budget, cost - control experience, and results F. Experience in designing fire stations. G. Ability to relate to project requirements H. Demonstrated ability to achieve design excellence 3. Scores from the above rating will be averaged and the top 5 - 8 firms will be invited to an interview process. Those firms accepting the invitation will have an opportunity for a tour of the site with city staff available to answer questions. 4. An interview panel made of members from the following organizations will do the final ranking: A. Central Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects - Allen Cooper B. City of San Luis Obispo Administration - Ken Hampian C. City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department - Erwin Willis D. Cal Poly School of Architecture - (possibly Mike Martin) E. San Luis Obispo County Contractors Assn. - (possibly Ed Knowlen) 6. A staff member designated by the CAO will do an extensive background check on the top three finalists to determine if other jurisdictions were pleased with the services of the firms. If one of the top three firms meets the following criteria, it will be considered local. A. The firm has a main or branch office located in the City of San Luis Obispo. B. One or more of the principals of the firm has been a resident of the City of San Luis Obispo for more than one year. C. The firm has a formal affiliation with an architectural firm that has its main office in the City of San Luis Obispo. (Additional preference will be given to firms whose sub - contractors also meet the above criteria.) If after the background check, a local firm is considered equally able to provide the services requested, then the CAO and the Fire Chief will recommend the local firm to Council.