Title
MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND TO AWARD RFP # PL-22-03 "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT - TO UPDATE THE CITYWIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN (EDSP)" TO REDEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $128,100, WHICH INCLUDES AN OWNER’S CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,100.
Summary Explanation and Background
PROCUREMENT PROCESS TAKEN:
- Chapter 35 of the City’s Code of Ordinance 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) of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "City Commission Approval."
- 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 1, 2022, the City Commission authorized the advertisement of RFP # PL-22-03 "Economic Development Consultant - To Update the Citywide Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP)", which was advertised on June 9, 2022.
2. The purpose of this solicitation was to update the Citywide Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) for the City’s Planning and Economic Development Department. The EDSP provides a framework that aims to increase the City’s tax base by enhancing the business climate and creating higher-paying jobs. The City’s ultimate goal is to sustain and expand its economic base in order to provide for a high quality of life for all residents. Ideally, the plan will set out a key set of strategies, with action items, that build upon the City’s current economic asset base, identify how to overcome its challenges, facilitate the growth and expansion of existing industry and business sectors, and promote key redevelopment corridors as integral to the City’s economic future over the next 5 to 10 years. These activities will increase employment and position the City as a great place to live, learn, work, and play.
3. On July 12, 2022, the City opened nine (9) proposals from the following vendors:
Vendor Name Total Cost
Strategic Planning Group, Inc. $115,000
Redevelopment Management Associates, LLC $122,000
Thomas P. Miller & Associates, LLC $138,188
BDO USA, LLP $140,000
The Research Associates, Inc. $143,860
Resonance Consultancy, Inc. $144,575
Camoin Associates, Inc. $150,000
Lambert Advisory, LLC $150,000
TIP Strategies, Inc. $150,000
4. On August 9, 2022, the City convened an evaluation committee to evaluate the qualifications of the proposers based on the weighted criteria provided for in the RFP documents and listed below:
- Project Cost (30%)
- Experience and Ability (25%)
- Previous Experience / References Form (25%)
- Firm’s Understanding and Approach to the Work (15%)
- Local Vendor Preference/Veteran Owned Small Business Preference (5%)
5. At the August 9, 2022 meeting, the evaluation committee ranked the vendors as shown below:
Rank Vendor Name
1 Redevelopment Management Associates, LLC
2 Strategic Planning Group, Inc.
3 Lambert Advisory, LLC
4 Resonance Consultancy, Inc.
5 Camoin Associates, Inc.
6 TIP Strategies, Inc.
7 BDO USA, LLP
8 Thomas P. Miller & Associates, Inc.
9 The Research Associates, Inc.
6. Based on the scoring results, the evaluation committee unanimously approved a motion to recommend the City Commission to award RFP # PL-22-03 "Economic Development Consultant - To Update the Citywide Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) to the first ranked vendor, Redevelopment Management Associates, LLC.
7. Redevelopment Management Associates, LLC has also completed the Equal Benefits Certification Form and has stated that the "Contractor currently complies with the requirements of this section.
8. Request Commission to approve the findings and recommendation of the Evaluation Committee and to award RFP # PL-22-03 "Economic Development Consultant - To Update the Citywide Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) to Redevelopment Management Associates, LLC in the amount not to exceed $128,100, which includes an owner’s contingency in the amount of $6,100.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: $128,100
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: Funds are currently budgeted for this project in the following account: #001-515-9002-548510-0000-000-0000- (Economic Development Activities)
c) Source of funding for difference, if not fully budgeted: Not Applicable.
d) 5 year projection of the operational cost of the project:
|
|
Current FY |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
|
Revenues |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
|
Expenditures |
$61,000.00 |
$67,100.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
|
Net Cost |
$61,000.00 |
$67,100.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
e) Detail of additional staff requirements: Not Applicable.
FEASIBILITY REVIEW:
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.