CC_Minutes_2013_0325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 25,2013 Page 27 were currently 5-6 staff members trained in that process, which also continues to evolve each time it is used. Discussion included those staff members trained and their role in the City; the model currently being used by MnDOT that follows State law and how perfor- mance measures are applied; benefits and/or detriments for variations between risk and value added or other areas of focus, as well as qualifications versus capa- bilities or expertise of vendors; how weighting is determined for specific projects; identification of risks by contractors themselves and how they could mitigate those risks before encountered and how they would make a project better beyond the areas identified by staff based on their perspective; and advantages of keeping the vendor selection process blind until the interview itself. Based on her personal experience with the best value process, Councilmember McGehee expressed her favorable impression with the ASU model,but her disap- pointment with the best overall value process currently used, and suggested that staff develop additional improvements moving forward. Councilmember McGe- hee specifically addressed the interview process in the best overall value process and its specificity and there was a need to allow vendors to improve the City's ini- tial request for proposals (RFP) and also to adjust performance ratings. Coun- cilmember McGehee further opined that additional education and training for all parties involved in the process was needed; with the selection process a vital component. Councilmember Willmus advised that his purpose in bringing this request forward was to differentiate between the two processes; with qualifications being the main component from his perspective. Councilmember Willmus questioned the use of the best overall value process in selecting janitors, or similar vendors; and sought additional information on the variables entering into the evaluation and if or how past relationships enter into that process. City Manager Malinen reiterated that the process remained totally blind allowing for an unbiased review, one of the strengths of the process for the initial evalua- tion, scoring and ranking; and remaining unknown to interviewers in that initial part of the process. Mayor Roe opined that both processes were apparently continuing to evolve as they were used and as staff became more adept at using the methods. Councilmember Laliberte opined that this discussion had been helpful from her perspective; however, she remained confused as to which process was used. City Manager Malinen responded that the natural evolution from his perspective was to use the ASU model for construction projects, which the Public Works De- partment continued to pursue, while awaiting the MnDOT model as well. Mr.