Title
MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND TO AWARD RFP # PD-24-03 "VEHICLE CONVERSION FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S CRISIS RESPONSE TEAM” TO TECHOPS SPECIALTY VEHICLES, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $146,023.45.
Summary Explanation and Background
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
- Chapter 35 of the City’s Code of Ordinances is titled “PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES, PUBLIC FUNDS.”
- Section 35.15 defines a Request for Proposals as “A written solicitation for competitive sealed proposals with the title, date and hour of the public opening designated. A request for proposals shall include, but is not limited to, general information, functional or general specifications, a statement of work, proposal instruction and evaluation criteria. All requests for proposals shall state the relative importance of price and any other evaluation criteria. The city may engage in competitive negotiations with responsible proposers determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award for the purpose of clarification to assure full understanding of and conformance to the solicitation requirements. Proposers shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals and such revisions may be permitted after submissions and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining the best and final offer”
- Section 35.18 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "COMPETITIVE BIDDING OR COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS.
- Section 35.18(A) states, "A purchase of or contracts for commodities or services that is estimated by the Chief Procurement Officer to cost more than $25,000 shall be based on sealed competitive solicitations as determined by the Chief Procurement Officer, except as specifically provided herein."
- Section 35.19 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "SEALED COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURE."
- Section 35.19(A) states "All sealed competitive solicitations as defined in § 35.18 shall be presented to the City Commission for their consideration prior to advertisement."
- Section 35.21 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "AWARD OF CONTRACT."
- Section 35.21(A)(1) states, "An initial purchase of, or contract for, commodities or services, in excess of $25,000, shall require the approval of the City Commission, regardless of whether the competitive bidding or competitive proposal procedures were followed."
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
1. On June 18, 2024, the City Commission authorized the advertisement of PD-24-03 "Vehicle Conversion for the Police Department’s Crisis Response Team", which was advertised on December 3, 2024.
2. The purpose of this solicitation was to seek proposals from qualified firms to equip the Police Department’s Sprinter Van with the necessary modifications to serve as a fully functional Crisis Response Van. The vehicle was purchased as a stock Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, which requires significant up-fitting to meet the needs of the Crisis Response Team.
3. Although the bid was approved to be advertised in late June, there were several revisions to the bid document that delayed the advertisement of the solicitation. These revisions included transitioning the bid package from the City’s previous procurement software, Bonfire, to the new software, OpenGov. Additionally, the scope of work was simplified to provide greater clarity for potential vendors, the format was revised from a bid format to a proposal format allowing for a more comprehensive evaluation of vendor qualifications, and the Price Proposal/Bid Table was updated to reflect the changes in scope. These revisions were essential to ensure the solicitation aligned with both the Police Department's operational needs and the City's procurement standards.
4. On January 7th, 2025, the City opened one (1) proposal, from the following vendor:
|
Vendor |
Total |
|
TechOps Specialty Vehicles |
$146,023.45 |
5. On May 29, 2025, the City convened an evaluation committee to evaluate the qualifications of the proposer based on the weighted criteria provided for in the solicitation documents and listed below:
|
|
Evaluation Criteria |
Points |
|
|
Project Cost |
25 |
|
|
Experience and Capabilities |
25 |
|
|
Firm’s Understanding and Approach to the Work |
20 |
|
|
Previous Experience & References |
25 |
|
|
Local Vendor/Veteran Owned Small Business Pref |
5 |
|
|
TOTAL |
100 |
6. The evaluators discussed the vendor’s proposal and conducted a Q&A with the vendor to clarify questions about the time it would take to complete the project, review the vendor’s references, clarify the specifications of the upfitting, and clarify the details of the warranties provided.
7. The evaluation committee ranked the vendor and made a motion to recommend that the City Commission award RFP # PD-24-03 “Vehicle Conversion for the Police Departments Crisis Response Team” to the highest ranked firm, TechOps Specialty Vehicles.
8. TechOps Specialty Vehicles has also completed the Equal Benefits Certification Form and has stated that the "Contractor currently complies with the requirements of this section."
9. Request Commission to approve the findings and recommendation of the evaluation committee and to award RFP # PD-24-03 "Vehicle Conversion for the Police Department’s Crisis Response Team” to TechOps Specialty Vehicles, in the amount not to exceed $146,023.45.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: Amount not to exceed $146,023.45.
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: Funds are available in account # 001-521-3001-664221-0000-000-0000 (Van).
c) Source of funding for difference, if not fully budgeted: Not Applicable.
d) 5 year projection of the operational cost of the project: Not Applicable.
e) Detail of additional staff requirements: Not Applicable.
FEASIBILITY REVIEW:
A feasibility review is required for the award, renewal and/or expiration of all function sourcing contracts. This analysis is to determine the financial effectiveness of function sourcing services.
a) Was a Feasibility Review/Cost Analysis of Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor Conducted for this service? Not Applicable.
b) If Yes, what is the total cost or total savings of utilizing Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor for this service? Not Applicable.