Laserfiche WebLink
th <br />On August 20, 2012, six proposals were received. The Best Value Procurement selection process <br />31 <br />began with a five member evaluation team made up of staff from Parks and Recreation and Public <br />32 <br />Works and a representative from the Parks and Recreation Commission. All firms were within the <br />33 <br />$194,500 anticipated budget, although costs and firm names were not known to the evaluation team <br />34 <br />until the interview time. <br />35 <br /> <br />36 <br />The best value process uses six selection criteria: <br />37 <br /> <br />Past Performance Information (PPI) <br />· <br />38 <br /> <br />Project Capability <br />· <br />39 <br /> <br />Identification and Mitigation of Risk <br />· <br />40 <br /> <br />Value Added <br />· <br />41 <br /> <br />Cost <br />· <br />42 <br /> <br />Interview of Key Personnel <br />· <br />43 <br />The submittal evaluation process is “blind” (no bias from knowledge of consultant names by the <br />44 <br />selection committee), minimizes the decision making of the selection committee, and forces the <br />45 <br />consultants to show dominant and clear reasons as to why they should be hired. The process connects <br />46 <br />value with price, forcing consultants to show dominant value. To further minimize the bias of the <br />47 <br />selection committee during the submittal evaluation process, the selection committee does the <br />48 <br />following: <br />49 <br /> <br />50 <br /> <br />1.Rates all criteria separately. <br />51 <br /> <br />2.Justifies any high rating. <br />52 <br /> <br />3.Does not see the price breakout and PPI until after the prioritization of the consultants. <br />53 <br /> <br />4.Does not see the prioritization of consultants until after the prioritization is completed. <br />54 <br />th <br />On August 28, 2012 interviews were conducted with the project lead only from all six firms. The <br />55 <br />purpose was for them to describe their proposed plan and approach to the evaluation team. <br />56 <br /> <br />57 <br />st <br />On August 31, 2012, the highest ranked Potential Best Value Lead Consultant was identified as LHB <br />58 <br />Consulting, at which time the clarification phase began. The clarification phase consisted of <br />59 <br />understanding better; their scope, milestone schedule, financial arrangements, assessment of risks and <br />60 <br />mitigation plans and value added plans of the proposal. The following list includes all 6 firms and their <br />61 <br />total evaluation score and base cost: <br />62 <br />Firm Total Evaluation Score Base Cost <br />63 <br />LHB Consulting 996.3 $172,338 <br />64 <br />Stantec 923.6 $169,800 <br />65 <br />SEH 838.8 $173,000 <br />66 <br />HGA 782.6 $193,100 <br />67 <br />SRF Consulting Group 740.4 $190,000 <br />68 <br />WSB and Associates 706.2 $185,500 <br />69 <br />70 <br />LHB Consulting offered a strong recommendation on a well thought out Value Added Plan that will <br />71 <br />help to facilitate continued discussion with staff, citizens, community groups and other consultants for <br />72 <br />an additional cost not to exceed $22,080. This proposal specifically offices the lead project manager <br />73 <br />from LHB at City Hall 2 days per month throughout the contract to provide that ongoing coordination. <br />74 <br /> <br />75 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br />