Laserfiche WebLink
Holland & Knight Agreement <br />December 16, 2013 <br />Page 2 <br />adopted the Committee recommendations and took the following action: 1) it rejected the bids <br />submitted; 2) it authorized the City Manager to select and pay for interim services; and it 3) <br />authorized the Legislative Committee to develop a new selection process. <br />With the arrival of new City Manager Cavazos, the need to ensure that federally funded <br />programs remain on track, and the desire to immediately and efficiently address Council priorities <br />requiring the assistance of federal government liaison services, staff re- visited the RFP process. <br />The City Manager determined that the process was transparent, objective and fair and Holland <br />and Knight was uniformly rated as the most - qualified of seven proposers. Therefore, staff <br />recommends that Council reconsider the original recommendation to enter into an agreement <br />with Holland and Knight. Although the bids were previously rejected, the original process <br />involved a rigorous review and was sound and objective. Furthermore, Section 2 -807 of the <br />Santa Ana Municipal Code provides that contracts for services may be exempted from the <br />bidding process altogether, and those over $25,000, may be confirmed by the City Council. <br />Review of the 2012 RFP Selection Process <br />In September 2012, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) for <br />federal government liaison services. RFP 12 -075 for Federal Government Liaison Services was <br />released on November 21, 2012. Pursuant to the City's Standard Operating Procedures for RFP's, <br />RFP 12 -075 was posted on the City's website and it was released to 50 consulting firms <br />specializing in federal government liaison services. The 50 consulting firms were randomly selected <br />from a list of 250 of the top consulting firms in the nation. Of the 50 firms solicited seven <br />submitted proposals. All seven proposals complied with the basic requirements of the RFP and <br />therefore each firm was notified that their respective proposals qualified to be included in the interview <br />rating panel process. <br />A rating panel consisting of representatives from the <br />Recreation, and Community Services Agency, and the <br />convened to review each of the proposals and rate them <br />criteria as set forth in RFP 12 -075: <br />1. Responsiveness to the RFP <br />2. Implementation Plan <br />3. Experience of the Firm /Personnel <br />4. Cost of Proposal <br />Public Works Agency, Parks, <br />Community Development Agency <br />in accordance with the following <br />Proposals were rated individually by each panel member on the basis of a possible 100 <br />points. Each proposal received a total score by adding points assigned by each of the three <br />panelists, for a possible total of 300 points. At the conclusion of the meeting, the rating <br />panel selected the top three proposals based upon the final scores: <br />Consultant Firm <br />Final Score <br />Rankin Pro osal <br />Holland & Knight <br />261 <br />1 <br />The Ferguson Group <br />257 <br />2 <br />Patton Boggs <br />25 <br />3 <br />wv -&E <br />