My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008_1124_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2008
>
2008_1124_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2011 9:57:30 AM
Creation date
12/28/2011 9:19:29 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
186
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Financial Considerations <br />The proposals received for civil and prosecution ser-vices were generally consistent in <br />their scope of service, pursuant to the RFP. Staff undertook a quantitative analysis of the <br />civil and prosiecuting, attorney proposals and although there are some comparables that <br />can be identified - primarily the monthly retainer, amounts; it i s problematic to attempt to <br />make further comparisons. <br />The outcome is the same for the Prosecuting Attorney proposals. The number of non- <br />retainer hours we typically incur are even less than they are for Civil matters. Again, the <br />ranking of the firms, remains unchanged when. comparing the monthly retainer and the <br />overall "effe.cti,ve" cost. <br />Non-financial, C. onsiderations <br />'The analysis of the Review Team focused on each proposer's ability to fully meet the <br />City needs, based upon the proposals, the interviews, and, each of the raters' profession <br />i <br />exM erience as a Dlei artment Head, senior management emplovee and/or municipal <br />P JL of <br />ernployleie. I <br />An analysis of the. responsiveness to the RFP provides little difference in what the firms <br />i <br />will commit to do, for the City. However, it was the Review Teana's opinion there were <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.