Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout25A - AGMT COST ALLOCATION PLANREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2018 TITLE: APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH MGT OF AMERICA, INC., FOR FEDERALLY COMPLIANT COST ALLOCATION PLAN PREPARATION AND INTERNAL SERVICE FUND ALLOCATION STUDY (STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 6, 1G) CI MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 151 Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with MGT of America, Inc., for the three-year term beginning May 1, 2018, and expiring on April 30, 2021, with provision for two one-year extensions exercisable by the City Manager and City Attorney, to prepare annual Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 compliant Cost Allocation Plans necessary for state and federal grant reimbursement, and an Internal Service Fund Allocation Study, in the amount of $151,825 for the term of the agreement, including any approved extensions, plus a 10 percent contingency of $15,183, for a total amount not to exceed $167,008, subject to nonsubstantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. DISCUSSION A majority of the grants awarded to the Public Works Agency from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program for the City's Capital Improvement Program projects are distributed on a reimbursement claim basis. To receive the grant funds, Public Works Agency staff must submit detailed reimbursement documentation, as required by the respective funding agencies. However, because state and federal grant reimbursement requests include both direct and indirect City employee labor costs, a federally compliant Cost Allocation Plan is required that calculates the appropriate Indirect Cost Rate percentage applicable for reimbursement claims. OCTA requires a third -party review of the annual Indirect Cost Rate Proposal calculations, and will not process reimbursement for projects unless a 2 CFR Part 200 compliant Cost Allocation Plan is prepared and accepted by Caltrans within the appropriate fiscal year. A similar Fund Allocation Study is needed for the Public Works Agency Administrative Services Division (Division). The Division budget is characterized as an Internal Service Fund and is funded by cross charges to internal Public Works departments. The cross charges have been 25A-1 Agreement with MGT of America, Inc., for Cost Allocation Plans and Internal Service Fund Allocation Study May 1, 2018 Page 2 set each year based on a historical assessment of, services provided by the Division. A formal Fund Allocation Study will ensure that the annual cross charges accurately and equitably allocates the true costs of the Division programs and services. The results of the study will be used in preparing future Public Works Agency annual budgets. On February 22, 2018, the Public Works Agency released a Request for Proposals (RFP) on the City's website and PlanetBids, seeking consultant services to prepare engineering services Cost Allocation Plans for Fiscal Years (FY) 2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019, and an Internal Service Fund Allocation Study of the Public Works Administrative Services Division Internal Service Rate calculations. According to PlanetBids data, a total of 21 prospective bidders downloaded the RFP. On March 7, 2018, two proposals were received and subsequently evaluated by a selection committee comprised of staff from the Public Works Agency for content and responsiveness to the RFP. Each firm was rated according to its firm/team experience, understanding of need, relevant project experience, schedule, and proposed cost and pricing data. The following is the list of firms and their respective evaluation scores: Rank Firm Score 1 MGT of America, Inc. 92.2 2 Matrix Consulting Group 83.6 The proposal by MGT of America, Inc., met all the evaluation criteria and required services listed in the RFP. Because of their ranking, qualifications, project experience, and scope of work understanding, their proposal was found to provide the best value for the requested services. Staff therefore recommends that the top firm, MGT of America, Inc., be retained to provide consulting services to prepare 2 CFR Part 200 compliant Cost Allocation Plans necessary for state and capital improvement project reimbursement, and to complete an Internal Service Fund Allocation Study for the Public Works Administrative Services Division for a fee in an amount not to exceed $151,825, based on the schedule of rates and fees incorporated into the agreement (Exhibit 1) to perform the services detailed in the Agreement Scope of Work (Exhibit 2). STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal #6 — Community Facilities & Infrastructure, Objective #1 (establish and maintain a Community Investment Plan for all City assets), Strategy G (develop and implement the City's Capital Improvement Program in coordination with the Community Investment and Deferred Maintenance Plans). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT There is no environmental impact associated with this action. 25A-2 Agreement with MGT of America, Inc., for Cost Allocation Plans and Internal Service Fund Allocation Study May 1, 2018 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT The agreement cost distribution by Scope of Work is as follows: sope of Work Service Fund Fee $38,500 Total $3,850 1 $42,350 Allocation Plans•--'" $66,3101 $23,2171 $23,7981 $11,3331 $124,658 TOTALS: 183 Funds in the amount of $42,350 for the Internal Service Fund Allocation Study are budgeted and available for expenditure and encumbrance in Fiscal Year 2017/2018 in the Public Works Administrative Services Contractual Services Account (No. 10117601-62300). Funds for the Engineering Services Cost Allocation Plan will be budgeted in the Engineering Services Design Engineering Contractual Services account (No. 08617612-62300) and in the annual Project Development Capital Improvement Program project, Measure M2 Fairshare Fund (Account No. 03217662-66220) in FY 2018/2019, FY 2019/2020, and FY 2020/2021; and FY 2021/2022 and FY 2022/2023, if the renewal options are exercised in the following accounts. The estimated spending plan is as follows: ;;o I Engineering Services Cost Fund Allocan Allocation Plans Study FISCAL YEAR ACCOUNT NO. 10117601-62300 ACCOUNT NO. 08617612-62300 ACCOUNT NO. 03217662-66220 TOTALS 2017-2018 $42,350 $42,350 2018-2019 $10,000 $13,716 $23,716 2019-2020 $10,000 $14,309 $24,309 2020-2021 $10,000 $14,916 $24,916 3 -Year Term SUBTOTAL: $42,350 $30,000 $42,941 $115,291 Optional: 2021-2022 $10,000 $15,539 $25,539 2022-2023 $10,000 $16,178 $26,178 2 -Year Extension SUBTOTAL: $20,000 $31,717 $51,717 TOTAL: $42,350 $50,000 $74,658 1 $167,008 25A-3 Agreement with MGT of America, Inc., for Cost Allocation Plans and Internal Service Fund Allocation Study May 1, 2018 Page 4 Any unspent and encumbered balances will be carried forward into subsequent fiscal years as needed to fulfill the agreement. &�Q Edwin "William" Galv , P.E. Acting Executive Director Public Works Agency EWG/JG/HG APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: Francisco Gutierrez Executive Director Finance & Management Services Agency Exhibits: 1. RFP No. 18-023 — Cost Allocation Plan and Internal Services Fund Allocation Study 2. Agreement with MGT of America, Inc. (including Proposal & Fee Schedule) 25A-4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES ""I INTERNAL SERVICES FUND ALLOCATION STUDY FOR PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RFP NO.: 18-023 CITY OF SANTA ANA Santa Ana Public Works Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Hayley Gilbert Project Manager (714) 647-5059 Office hgilbert asanta-ana.ora for Release: KEY RFP DATES (Subject to change at discretion of City): Issue Date: Letter of Intent: (optional) Deadline for Requests for Information: Proposal Due Date: Projected Award Date: Thursday February 22, 2018 Thursday March 1, 2018 Tuesday March 1, 2018 Tuesday March 8, 2018; 3:00pm. Tuesday April 3, 2018 Exhibit 1 25A-5 Jason Gabriel Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Agency NOTICE INVITING PROPOSALS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that proposals will be received from qualified firms for a Full Cost Allocation Plan for Engineering Services and/or an Internal Service Fund Allocation Study for Public Works Administrative Services. Responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP) will be accepted until Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. Proposals received after this date/time will not be considered. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that any proposals submitted have sufficient time to be received by the City of Santa Ana prior to this proposal due date and time. Proposals shall be enclosed in a sealed envelope and marked clearly with following information, formatted as follows: "SEALED PROPOSAL FOR FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND/OR INTERNAL SERVICE FUND ALLOCATON STUDY FOR PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RFP NO. 18-023 IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DO NOT OPEN WITH REGULAR MAIL." City of Santa Ana Attn.: Hayley Gilbert Public Works Agency; 20 Civic Center Plaza; 3rd Floor Reception, Ross Annex Santa Ana, CA 92701 Proposals shall be mailed, band delivered, or sent by courier service. Proposals shall NOT be sent via telegraphic, electronic or facsimile. All notifications, updates and addenda will be posted on the City's RFP Bid page at www.santa- ana.ore/bids-rfos. Proposers shall be responsible for monitoring the site to obtain information regarding this solicitation. Failure to respond to required updates may result in a determination of a nonresponsive proposal. LETTER OF INTENT - Interested firms shall submit a Letter of Intent of their pending proposal to the noted Project Manager by the required date as shown on the cover page of this RFP. Letters shall be forwarded via certified mail or email and shall include the following information: 1. Use formal company letterhead. 2. Indication of company interest in the RFP. 3. Acknowledgement of candidate's responsibility to monitor the City's website for any amendments or modifications to the RFP. 4. Provision of correct, complete contact information. City of Santa Ana RFP 18-023 2v&A 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION / PROJECT DESCRIPTION H. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS A. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES B. PROPOSER RESPONSIBILITIES C. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION D. ADDENDA E. LICENSES & PERMITS F. INSURANCE G. INFORMATION PACKET H. PRE -PROPOSAL MEETING I. CITY RIGHT TO REJECT J. BID PROTESTS III. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A. GENERAL B. PROPOSAL CONTENTS 1. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULE 3. FEE PROPOSAL 4. CERTIFICATIONS IV. PROPOSAL REVIEW (CONSULTANT SELECTION A. EVALUATION AND RATING B. SELECTION V. CONTRACT AWARD A. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION B. EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT VI. IMPLEMENTATION A KICK-OFF MEETING B. NOTICE TO PROCEED VII. PUBLIC RECORDS VIII. APPENDIX ATTACHMENT 1: SCOPE OF WORK ATTACHMENT 2: AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT 3: CERTIFICATIONS City of Santa Ana RFP 18-023 2'.*,Ai=7 M I. INTRODUCTION / PROJECT DESCRIPTION Nature of Work: The City of Santa Ana is requesting sealed proposals for a Full Cost Allocation Plan for Engineering Services and/or an Internal Service Fund Allocation Study for Public Works Administrative Services. Proposers may respond to one of both of the aforementioned projects. A detailed Scope of Work is included in the Appendix of this RFP as Attachment 1. Number ofPr000sals and Signature: Five (5) hard copies and one (1) digital file on labeled USB Flash Drive (or equivalent). One of the hard copies shall be marked as "ORIGINAL' and shall be signed by a company official with the power to bind the company and submitted to the City of Santa Ana. One (1) copy of your Fee Proposal shall be submitted. The Statement of Qualifications shall be limited to a maximum of (10) double -sided pages (excluding front and back covers, section dividers and attachments such as resumes, forms). Font size shall be minimum 11 -point Arial. Proposal exhibits shall be maximum 11" x 17". ronosal Evaluation and Rating: The criteria for evaluating the proposals submitted will take the following items into consideration: • Firm/Team Experience 20% • Understanding of Need 25% • Relevant Project Experience 25% • Schedule 20% • Cost Proposal 10% The City has established a proposal review committee to evaluate proposers based on the response to the RFP, which includes adherence to outlined directions and format, and the City evaluation criteria set forth above. A final score will be calculated for each submitted proposal and used to rank the proposers. City of Santa Ana RFP 18-023 P2SA-8 Proiect Funding: Project is partially funded with Special Gas Tax funds. Special conditions may apply. Refer to Attachment 1 (Scope of Work) in the Appendix of this RFP. City of Santa Ana RFP 18-023 125A-9 II. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS A. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES The City will provide information in its possession relevant to preparation of required information in RFP. The City will provide only the staff assistance and documentation specifically referred to herein. B. PROPOSER RESPONSIBILITIES Point of Contact: The selected proposer will assume responsibilities for all services in its proposal. The selected proposer shall identify a sole point of contact with the greatest knowledge in regard to the required service operations and contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the Agreement. Evidence of Financial Capacity: Proposer may be requested to submit its most recent audited financial statement, evidencing proposer's financial capacity to fully perform the required services, including provision of equipment and personnel expenses over a ninety (90) day period. If said financial statement does not reflect full ninety (90) day operational capacity, proposer may include a letter of credit as evidence of supplemental capacity. C. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION All questions or requested clarifications shall be made in writing via e-mail to the Project Manager (contact information as noted on the cover page to this RFP) no fewer than five (5) calendar days prior to the date and time set for opening of proposals. No verbal requests or responses will be accepted. Significant interpretations or clarifications will be addressed via addenda to this RFP. D. ADDENDA Any changes in RFP from the date of release to date of submittal will result in an addendum or amendment. Notification of such addendum or amendment shall be posted on City's website, santa-ana.ore/bids-rfps as set forth in the Notice Inviting Proposals. Addenda shall become part of the agreement documents. E. LICENSES & PERMITS The selected proposer shall be required to obtain a City of Santa Ana Business license within ten (10) business days of selection and must provide a copy to the City projects manager or designee prior to commencing any work in Santa Ana. Additionally, Proposer will be responsible for obtaining any licenses/permits required by the Scope of Work. F. INSURANCE The Selected Proposer shall provide the required evidence of insurance coverage as set forth in the Scope of Work within ten (10) business days after receipt of notice that the contract has been awarded. Failure to provide the required insurance certificates shall be cause for the annulment of the award and the forfeiture of the proposal guaranty. City of Santa Ana RFP Page 3 25A-10 G. PAYMENT INFORMATION PACKET The selected proposer shall return a completed payment information packet within ten (10) business days after the successful proposer has received notice that the contract has been awarded. The packet is available on the City's website: santa-ana.org/bids-r—fps. H. PRE -PROPOSAL MEETING Should a pre -proposal be scheduled, the date, time and location is identified on the cover page of this RFP. The meeting will include discussion of the project scope and a question - and -answer session. It is highly recommended that the Proposer's key team members attend this meeting. Significant interpretations or clarifications will be addressed via addenda to this RFP, as described above in "Section D: Addenda." I. CITY RIGHT TO REJECT The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted and no representation is made hereby that any contract will be awarded pursuant to this RFP or otherwise. The City reserves the right to accept or reject the combined or separate components of this proposal in part or in its entirety or to waive any minor inconsistency, informality or technical defect in the proposal. The City reserves the right to reject, replace and approve any and all subcontractors. All subcontractor(s) shall be identified in the response to the RFP. Subcontractors shall be the responsibility of the successful proposer and the City shall assume no liability of such subcontractors. J. BID PROTESTS Proposers with concerns or rebuttal of any staff determination of non -responsiveness or non - responsibility may submit, in writing within five (5) business days, to the Project Manager, any concerns regarding the RFP process or stats determination. Such writing shall be considered by the City Manager or his designated representative, and may be acted upon within five (5) business days. If no action is taken within such time, there shall be no change to the staff determination. The exercise by Proposer of its right to submit written concerns shall be a condition precedent to seeking judicial review of any award of a contract hereunder. City of Santa Ana RFP Page 4 25A-11 A. GENERAL 1. The number of Proposal Copies and signature is specified in: RFP SECTION I - INTRODUCTION / PROJECT DESCRIPTION. II. Deadline: Proposals are due to the City of Santa Ana at the date, time, and location specified in the Notice Inviting Proposals. B. PROPOSAL CONTENTS The proposal format and page limitation, if any, is specified in: RFP SECTION I - INTRODUCTION / PROJECT DESCRIPTION. I. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS a. Cover Letter — Proposals shall include a letter signed by a principal or authorized representative who can make legally binding commitments for the entity. b. Contract Agreement Statement: Proposal shall include a statement outlining your concurrence or concerns with any and all provisions as contained in the Agreement attached herein as Attachment 2 in the Appendix. c. Firm and Team Experience: Proposal shall include a profile of the firm's experience. Include resumes of project team/sub-consultants that will be providing services which outline their technical and design experience. At a minimum, this should include the project manager/principal agent, associates in charge when project manager/principal agent is unavailable, key personnel, firm size, and an organization chart identifying only those who will perform work for the proposed project and the percentage of each individual's time devoted to this project. The project manager/principal agent shall be the primary contact person to represent your firm and will be the person to conduct the presentation, if invited for an interview. d. Understanding of Need: Proposal shall include an outline which demonstrates the firm's understanding of the work. This outline should include anticipated approach, tasks necessary for successful completion, deliverables, and suggestions or special concerns that the City should be made aware of. Identify any assumptions and/or exclusions used in preparation of the scope of work and associated fee estimate. e. Relevant Project Experience: Proposal shall include a list of projects which your firm or personnel have completed within the last 5 years, including significant work with public agencies. Project information should include project description, year completed, client name, along with a person to contact and their telephone number. City of Santa Ana RFP Page 5 25A-12 IV V. f. References: Proposal shall include a listing of relevant projects with references for three public entities for which Proposer has performed similar work within the past five (5) years. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULE: Proposal shall include a Scope of Services and Schedule which details the work phases to be completed, the tasks to be accomplished, the deliverables to be provided, and the schedule / timeline to complete the project, based upon the requested Scope of Work detailed in Attachment I of this RFP. FEE PROPOSAL: The fee proposal shall be submitted concurrently with the technical proposal, but in a separately sealed envelope, clearly labeled as "Fee Proposal." This shall include the firm's Standard Hourly Fee Schedule, a table outlining the tasks and team hourly effort for each of the major tasks, and a Project Fee Schedule as outlined in the Scope of Work. The fee proposal will not be opened until the proposals have been evaluated by the proposal selection committee. The City will select the consultant based on qualifications, and then negotiate a contract price based on available funding. 4. CERTIFICATIONS: The following forms shall be signed and included as part of the proposal submittal package: • Attachment 3-1: Non -Collusion Affidavit • Attachment 3-2: Non -Lobbying Certification • Attachment 3-3: Non -Discrimination Certification PROPOSAL REVIEW (CONSULTANT SELECTION) A. EVALUATION AND RATING The criteria for evaluating the proposals are specified in: RFP SECTION I - INTRODUCTION / PROJECT DESCRIPTION. B. SELECTION The committee may interview the top ranking proposers. The City will recommend award of the contract to the proposer who will provide the best value to the City. City reserves the right to begin negotiations and enter into a contract without interview or further discussions. CONTRACT AWARD A. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION City of Santa Ana RFP Page 6 25A-13 VI. Following evaluation and rating by the proposal review committee, the Project Manager will recommend award of a contract to the proposer providing the best value to the City. B. EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT The Scope of Services, Schedule, and Fees submitted in the proposal will be the basis of any negotiation of final terms which will lead to a completed agreement ready for execution based on the standard Agreement attached herein as Attachment 2 in the Appendix. A. KICK-OFF MEETING A kick-off meeting will be held after award of contract. Consultant and its team will meet with City of Santa Ana staff to conduct introductions, discuss scope of services, and implementation process. B. NOTICE TO PROCEED Following the kick-off meeting, a formal Notice to Proceed (NTP) may be issued after the agreement is fully executed, and all required bonds, insurance documents and contents of the Information Packet have been received and approved. For "On -Call' contracts, Consultant will be notified by individual City Project Managers on a case-by-case basis to request project/task specific proposals. Written NTPs will be then issued accordingly. VII. PUBLIC RECORDS All data, documents and other products used, developed, or produced during response preparation of the RFP will become property of the City. All responses to the RFP shall become property of the City. Proposer information identified as proprietary information shall be maintained confidential, to the extent allowed under the California Public Records Act. Proposals will become public record after award of contract. Proposer information identified as proprietary information shall be maintained confidential, to the extent allowed under the California Public Records Act. City of Santa Ana RFP Page 7 25A-14 Appendix ATTACffiVMNT 1 SCOPE OF WORK CITY OF SANTA ANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES AND/OR INTERNAL SERVICE FUND ALLOCATION STUDY FOR PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RFP NO.: 18-023 Proposers may respond to one or both of the projects detailed below: (1) FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES Background The City of Santa Ana is the only city in Orange County delivering capital projects using in- house staff to design and perform construction management with an expectation of fall cost recovery. Therefore, overhead cost rates will deviate from a majority of other Orange County cities utilizing general fund subsidies. In 2016, the City hired a consultant to complete preparation of an Indirect Cost Rate Proposal and cost reimbursement services related to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Public Works Agency. The City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency is currently seeking consultant proposals to prepare fiscal year (FY) 16/17, FY 17/18, and FY 18/19 Cost Allocation Plans that are acceptable to federal, state, and local grant agencies. It is critical that the FY 16/17 Cost Allocation Plan is completed, submitted, and accepted by local funding agencies prior to the end of the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2017. The City's last updated Cost Allocation Plan was completed for FY 15/16. Most of the grants awarded to the Public Works Agency from Caltrans and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program for the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects are distributed on a reimbursement basis. To receive the grant funds, Public Works staff must submit detailed reimbursement documentation, as required by the respective funding agencies. However, because the reimbursement requests include both direct and indirect City employee labor costs, an approved Cost Allocation Plan is required that calculates the appropriate Indirect Cost Rate percentage that can be used. Purvose The purpose of this project is to ensure that the City of Santa Ana has abasis of applying comprehensive overhead rates and is accurately accounting for the true cost of providing various services within Public Works Agency. A Full Cost Allocation Plan is able to allocate all indirect costs. Additionally, best practices, accounting standards and OMB 2 CFR Part 225 make it necessary for the City to maintain a well-documented Cost Allocation Plan that will help it to appropriately allocate general and administrative costs in its budget; properly identify overhead rates that can be used in the calculation of billable hourly rates for federal and state grants, user fees, and reimbursements from other governmental agencies. The City's goal is to have a well - City of Santa Ana RFP 18-023 Z5*j15 documented and defensible Cost Allocation Plan prepared annually that will identify rates that can be used to recover billable hourly costs for services and develop user fees that comply with Proposition 218. Scope of Services Prepare the City's Full Cost Allocation Plan for FY 16/17; FY 17/18; and FY 18/19 (total cost plan and an OMB 2 CFR Part 225 plan), which may include the following elements (if the consultant feels that additional tasks are warranted, they must be clearly identified in the consultant's proposal): A. Work and meet with selected City staff to refine the project scope, purpose, uses and goals of the City's Full Cost Allocation Plan to ensure that the study will be both accurate and appropriate to the City's needs. Review project schedule and answer any questions pertaining to the successful development of the study. B. If necessary, meet with staff and conduct interviews as needed to gain an understanding of the Public Work Agency's processes and operations. This includes where certain services and functions are performed together or shared through cooperation between different divisions. Costs should be identified so that they can be allocated to and tracked accordingly. C. Identify the total cost of providing each City service at the appropriate activity level and in a manner that is consistent with all applicable laws, statutes, rules and regulations governing the collection of fees, rates, and charges by public entities including, but not limited to, the State Controller's Office Guidelines for Cost Claiming and OMB 2 CFR Part 225 standards. D. Develop a Full Cost Allocation Model using budgeted and/or actual data for calculating the full costs of providing each City service. The requirements of the model should allow for: a. Additions, revisions, or removal of direct and overhead costs so that the full Cost Allocation Plan can be easily adapted to a range of activities, both simple and complex. b. The ability of the City to continuously update the model and full Cost Allocation Plan from year to year as the organization changes. c. The addition of hypothetical service area information for future service enhancements, and the ability to calculate the estimated costs of providing the service under consideration (i.e. ad-hoc analysis). E. Report on other matters that come to your attention in the course of your evaluation that in your professional opinion the City should consider. F. Present the plan to the City's management group and make necessary adjustments as requested. G. Prepare and deliver presentations (as needed) to the Council to facilitate their understanding of the plan and its implications to the City. H. Provide the City with an electronic copy of the final comprehensive review, including related schedules and cost documentation in a format such as Microsoft Word and City of Santa Ana RFP 15-023 �XI-16 Microsoft Excel that can be edited and updated by City staff to accommodate changes in the organization or changes in cost. I. Prepare a final report and provide five bound copies, one unbound copy, and a single Microsoft Excel and PDF file of the Full Cost Recovery Plan that can be made available to City staff. Models, tables and graphs should be provided in Microsoft Excel. Any Cost Allocation Model revisions developed shall also be made available to the City in Microsoft Excel and PDF formats, providing the ability to add, delete and/or update information as needed. J. Provide a computer based model in Microsoft Excel for adjusting these fees and charges for the City's current and future needs and provide the City with an electronic copy of the final comprehensive study, including related schedules and cost documentation in a format that can be edited and updated by City staff to accommodate changes in the organization or changes in costs. K. Consult with City staff should the need arise to defend the Cost Allocation Plan as a result of audits or other challenges. L. Identification of an appropriate agency to review the Cost Allocation Plan, and establish a process for obtaining the approvals. Protect Timeline and Pricing It is critical that the FY 16/17 Cost Allocation Plan is completed, submitted, and accepted by local funding agencies at earliest possible date, not to exceed the end of the current fiscal year of June 30, 2017. In subsequent years, preparation of the Cost Allocation Plan shall be prepared following the close of books for the previous fiscal year (approximated timeframe of December). The Consultant shall provide a project schedule that outlines individual tasks, milestones, and deliverables. Any major change to the project schedule must be approved by the City. Provide a description of the project budget itemized according to the Firm's proposed timeline and broken into each service of phase of work, such as the planning, development, and/or implementation phase. Fees for subsequent years to update the Plan of Fees should the City choose to continue service. City of Santa Ana RFP 18-023 25ANIP7 (2) INTERNAL SERVICE FUND ALLOCATION STUDY The following additional work will be added at the City's discretion. Proposers must confirm that they are able to perform this type of work and allocate an estimated 175 hours in their Fee Proposal. A detailed Scope of Work and negotiated fee will be established prior to the Notice to Proceed. Scope of Work The City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency (PWA) is requesting proposals from qualified firms for an Internal Service Fund Allocation Study of its Administrative Services Division (Division). The Division budget is characterized as an Internal Service Fund. Rates are currently set each year based on a historical assessment of services provided to other PWA departments. The purpose of this study is to ensure that the annual assessment accurately and equitably allocates the true costs of the Division programs and services. The results of this study will be used in preparing the Division's FY 2019/20 budget. It is expected that the experience and expertise of the selected Consultant on this subject matter will inform the final project deliverables. It is also expected that all recommendations of the selected Consultant will be consistent with any governing laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Federal Office of Management and Budget. At minimum, the following deliverables must be provided: • Review of the Division's programs and services provided to PWA. • Identify all inter -agency customers. • Determine the bases for allocating costs. • Prepare a cost allocation methodology for distributing annual costs to all inter -agency customers. • Calculate Division Internal Services Rate that can be used in support of the Engineering Services Indirect Cost Rate for reimbursement of grants. • Recommend Best Management Practice guidelines related to: — Annual reconciliation of actual costs for services rendered — Cost recovery proceeds in excess of actual costs — Schedule for follow-up Internal Service Fund Allocation studies City of Santa Anna RFP 18-023 25A a 8 City of SantaAAnagRFP 18-023 W— 11 2 9 CONSULTANT AGREEMENT CITY OF SANTA ANA THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 2018 by and between , ("Consultant"), and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California ("City"). RECITALS A. The City desires to retain a consultant having special skill and knowledge in the field of The City of Santa Ana is seeking a Full Cost Allocation Plan for Engineering Services and/or Internal Services Fund Allocation Study for Public Works Administrative Services. B. Consultant represents that Consultant is able and willing to provide such services to the City. C. In undertaking the performance of this Agreement, Consultant represents that it is knowledgeable in its field and that any services performed by Consultant Linder this Agreement will be performed in compliance with such standards as may reasonably be expected from a professional consulting firm in the field. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual and respective promises, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: SCOPE OF SERVICES Consultant shall perform during the term of this Agreement, the tasks and obligations including all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidental customary work required to fully and adequately complete the services described and set forth in Scope of Services - Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. COMPENSATION a. City agrees to pay, and Consultant agrees to accept as total payment for its services for City, the rates and charges identified in Compensation - Exhibit B. The total amount to be expended under this Agreement shall not exceed $xxxxxx during the term of this Agreement, including any extension periods exercised under Section 3. City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-1 25A-20 b. Payment by City shall be made within 45 days (forty-five) days following receipt of proper invoice evidencing work performed, subject to City accounting procedures. Payment need not be made for work which fails to meet the standards of performance set forth in the Recitals which may reasonably be expected by City. 3. TERM This Agreement shall commence on the (3) year term with the option for the City exercisable by a writing by the City Managei accordance with Section 16, below. 4. PREVAILING WAGES date first written above for a three grant up to two (1) -year renewals, and the City Attorney, unless terminated earlier in Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., (`Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the services being performed are part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Consultant shall, during the entire term of this Agreement, be construed to be an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. This Agreement is not intended nor shall it be construed to create an employer-employee relationship, a joint venture relationship, or to allow the City to exercise discretion or control over the professional manner in which Consultant performs the services which are the subject matter of this Agreement; however, the services to be provided by Consultant shall be provided in a manner consistent with all applicable standards and regulations governing such services. Consultant shall pay all salaries and wages, employer's social security taxes, unemployment insurance and similar taxes relating to employees and shall be responsible for all applicable withholding taxes. 6. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS This Agreement creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were provided to Consultant by the City. City shall not City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-2 25A-21 be limited in any way in its use of the Documents and Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at City's sole risk. 7. INSURANCE Prior to undertaking performance of work under this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain and shall require its subcontractors, if any, to obtain and maintain insurance as described below: a. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance naming the City, its officers, employees, agents, volunteers and representatives as additional insured(s) and shall include, but not be limited to protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom and damage to property, resulting from any act or occurrence arising out of Consultant's operations in the performance of this Agreement, including, without limitation, acts involving vehicles. The amounts of insurance shall be not less than the following: single limit coverage applying to bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and property damage, in the total amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence, with $2,000,000 in the aggregate. Such insurance shall (a) name the City, its officers, employees, agents, and representatives as additional insured(s); (b) be primary and not contributory with respect to insurance or self-insurance programs maintained by the City; and (c) contain standard separation of insureds provisions. b. Business automobile liability insurance, or equivalent form, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. C. Worker's Compensation Insurance. In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, Consultant, if Consultant has any employees, is required to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance. Prior to commencing the performance of the work under this Agreement, Consultant agrees to obtain and maintain any employer's liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per accident. d. If Consultant is or employs a licensed professional such as an architect or engineer: Professional liability (errors and omissions) insurance, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per claim with $2,000,000 in the aggregate. e. The following requirements apply to the insurance to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this section: i. Consultant shall maintain all insurance required above in full force and effect for the entire period covered by this Agreement. ii. Certificates of insurance shall be furnished to the City upon execution of this Agreement and shall be approved by the City. iii. Certificates and policies shall state that the policies shall not be canceled or reduced in coverage or changed in any other material aspect without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. iv. Consultant shall supply City with a fully executed additional insured endorsement. City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-3 25A-22 f. If Consultant fails or refuses to produce or maintain the insurance required by this section or fails or refuses to furnish the City with required proof that insurance has been procured and is in force and paid for, the City shall have the right, at the City's election, to forthwith terminate this Agreement. Such termination shall not affect Consultant's right to be paid for its time and materials expended prior to notification of termination. Consultant waives the right to receive compensation and agrees to indemnify the City for any work performed prior to approval of insurance by the City. 8. INDEMNIFICATION Consultant agrees to defend, and shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, contractors, special counsel, and representatives from liability: (1) for personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief arising out of claims for personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage, which may arise from the negligent operations of the Consultant, its subcontractors, agents, employees, or other persons acting on its behalf which relates to the services described in section 1 of this Agreement; and (2) from any claim that personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief is due by reason of the terms of or effects arising from this Agreement. This indemnity and hold harmless agreement applies to all claims for damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of the events referred to in this Section or by reason of the terms of, or effects, arising from this Agreement. The Consultant further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and pay all costs for the defense of the City, including fees and costs for special counsel to be selected by the City, regarding any action by a third party challenging the validity of this Agreement, or asserting that personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief due to personal or property rights arises by reason of the terms of, or effects arising from this Agreement. City may make all reasonable decisions with respect to its representation in any legal proceeding. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. 9. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNIFICATION Consultant shall defend and indemnify the City, its officers, agents, representatives, and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in the work product or documents provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to this Agreement. 10. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any services, expenditures, and disbursements charged to the City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of the City to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement during regular business hours. City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-4 25A-23 Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. 11. CONFIDENTIALITY If Consultant receives from the City information which due to the nature of such information is reasonably understood to be confidential and/or proprietary, Consultant agrees that it shall not use or disclose such information except in the performance of this Agreement, and further agrees to exercise the same degree of care it uses to protect its own information of like importance, but in no event less than reasonable care. "Confidential Information" shall include all nonpublic information. Confidential information includes not only written information, but also information transferred orally, visually, electronically, or by other means. Confidential information disclosed to either party by any subsidiary and/or agent of the other party is covered by this Agreement. The foregoing obligations of non-use and nondisclosure shall not apply to any information that (a) has been disclosed in publicly available sources; (b) is, through no fault of the Consultant disclosed in a publicly available source; (c) is in rightful possession of the Consultant without an obligation of confidentiality; (d) is required to be disclosed by operation of law; or (e) is independently developed by the Consultant without reference to information disclosed by the City. 12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CLAUSE Consultant covenants that it presently has no interests and shall not have interests, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with performance of services. Conflict may be further specified in Certifications - Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated in this Agreement by reference. 13. DISCRIMIINATION Consultant shall not discriminate because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, or disability, as defined and prohibited by applicable law, in the recruitment, selection, training, utilization, promotion, termination or other employment related activities. Consultant affirms that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations and as further specified in Certifications - Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated in this Agreement by reference. 14. EXCLUSIVITY AND AMENDMENT This Agreement represents the complete and exclusive statement between the City and Consultant, and supersedes any and all other agreements, oral or written, between the parties. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and any attachments hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. This Agreement may not be modified except by written instrument signed by the City and by an authorized representative of Consultant. The parties agree that any terms or conditions of any purchase order or other instrument that are inconsistent with, or in addition to, the terms and conditions hereof, shall not bind or obligate Consultant or the City. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-5 25A-24 otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any parry, which is not embodied herein. 15. ASSIGNMENT Inasmuch as this Agreement is intended to secure the specialized services of Consultant, Consultant may not assign, transfer, delegate, or subcontract any interest herein without the prior written consent of the City and any such assignment, transfer, delegation or subcontract without the City's prior written consent shall be considered null and void. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the City's ability to have any of the services which are the subject to this Agreement performed by City personnel or by other consultants retained by City. 16. TERNIINATION This Agreement may be terminated by the City upon thirty (30) days written notice of termination. In such event, Consultant shall be entitled to receive and the City shall pay Consultant compensation for all services performed by Consultant prior to receipt of such notice of termination, subject to the following conditions: a. As a condition of such payment, the Executive Director may require Consultant to deliver to the City all work product(s) completed as of such date, and in such case such work product shall be the property of the City unless prohibited by law, and Consultant consents to the City's use thereof for such purposes as the City deems appropriate. b. Payment need not be made for work which fails to meet the standard of performance specified in the Recitals of this Agreement. 17. WAIVER No waiver of breach, failure of any condition, or any right or remedy contained in or granted by the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by the party waiving the breach, failure, right or remedy. No waiver of any breach, failure or right, or remedy shall be deemed a waiver of any other breach, failure, right or remedy, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing so specifies. 18. JURISDICTION - VENUE This Agreement has been executed and delivered in the State of California and the validity, interpretation, performance, and enforcement of any of the clauses of this Agreement shall be determined and governed by the laws of the State of California. Both parties further agree that Orange County, California, shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought or arise out of, in connection with or by reason of this Agreement. City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-6 25A-25 19. PROFESSIONAL LICENSES Consultant shall, throughout the term of this Agreement, maintain all necessary licenses, permits, approvals, waivers, and exemptions necessary for the provision of the services hereunder and required by the laws and regulations of the United States, the State of California, the City of Santa Ana and all other governmental agencies. Consultant shall notify the City immediately and in writing of its inability to obtain or maintain such permits, licenses, approvals, waivers, and exemptions. Said inability shall be cause for termination of this Agreement. 20. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS a. Additional provisions, if any, are identified as Additional Provisions, Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement by reference. No Exhibit D is attached in the absence of additional provisions. b. Each undersigned represents and warrants that its signature herein below has the power, authority and right to bind their respective parties to each of the terms of this Agreement, and shall indemnify City fully, including reasonable costs and attorney's fees, for any injuries or damages to City in the event that such authority or power is not, in fact, held by the signatory or is withdrawn. C. All Exhibits referenced herein and attached hereto shall be incorporated as if fully set forth in the body of this Agreement. 21. NOTICE Any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be properly given if delivered in person or mailed by fust class or certified mail, postage prepaid, or sent by fax or other telegraphic communication in the manner provided in this Section, to the following persons: City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-7 25A-26 To City: Clerk of the City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702-1988 Fax: 714- 647-6956 With courtesy copies to: Prion Gabriel Sonia R. Carvalho Principal Civil Engineer, PWA City Attorney City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-21) 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-29) P.O. Box 1988 P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 Santa Ana, California 92702 Fax: 714- 647-5635 Fax: 714- 647-6515 i To Consultant: First & Last Name Title Consultant Firm Name Address City, State, Zip Fax: A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party. Thereafter, any communication shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. If sent by mail, communication shall be effective or deemed to have been given three (3) days after it has been deposited in the United States mail, duly registered or certified, with postage prepaid, and addressed as set forth above. If sent by fax, communication shall be effective or deemed to have been given twenty-four (24) hours after the time set forth on the transmission report issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, addressed as set forth above. For purposes of calculating these time frames, weekends, federal, state, County or City holidays shall be excluded. City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-8 25A-27 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year first above written. ATTEST: Maria D. Huizar Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: SONIA R. CARVALHO City Attorney Ey: John Funk Assistant City Attorney RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: Executive Director Public Works Agency Rev. 9-20-2017 CITY OF SANTA ANA Raul Godinez H City Manager CONSULTANT: (name) (title) Tax ID# City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-9 25A-28 Mu 111,31 SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-10 25A-29 COMPENSATION Fee Proposal including hourly rates (from Consultant Proposal) The total compensation may include a line item for the cost from the Fee Proposal, followed by a line item for any contingency, followed by a grand total not to exceed (NTE) Amount. This is what may be transferred to the front page of the contract. City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-11 25A-30 EXmrr C CERTIFICATIONS C-1 through C-3 City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-12 25A-31 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS Caltrans Forms City of Santa Ana RFP Page A2-13 25A-32 NON -COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT (Title 23 United States Code Section 112 and Public Contract Code Section 7106) To the CITY OF SANTA ANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS In accordance with Title 23 United States Code Section 112 and Public Contract Code 7106 the BIDDER declares that the bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the BIDDER has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other BIDDER to put in a false or sham bid, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived or agreed with any BIDDER or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding; that the BIDDER has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the BIDDER or any BIDDER, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other BIDDER, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the bid are true; and, further, that the BIDDER has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof; or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham bid. Note: The above Non -collusion Affidavit is part of the Proposal. Signing this Proposal on the signature portion thereof shall also constitute signature of this Non -collusion Affidavit. BIDDERS are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal prosecution. Signed State of California County of Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this _ day of . 20, by , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me. Notary Public Signature Notary Public Seal City of Santa Ana RFP Page A3-1 25A-33 The prospective participant certifies, by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 2. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence any officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant loan, loan or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit a "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities". This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U. S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure, The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts, which exceed $100,000 and that all such sub recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Firm Signed and Printed Name: Title Date City of Santa Ana RFP Page A3-2 25A-34 The undersigned consultant or corporate officer, during the performance of this contract, certifies as follows: The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without, regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. 2. The Consultant shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Consultant, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 3. The Consultant shall send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he/she has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice to be provided advising the said labor union or workers' representatives of the Consultant's commitments under this section, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment. 4. The Consultant shall comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. 5. The Consultant shall furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his/her books, records, and accounts by the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation, to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders. 6. In the event of the Consultant's non-compliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders, the contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the Consultant may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts or federally assisted construction contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Execution Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulations, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. 7. The Consultant shall include the portion of the sentence immediately preceding paragraph (1) and the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (7) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted City of Santa Ana RFP Page AM 25A-35 by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontract or purchase order as the administering agency may direct as means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event the Consultant becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a sub -consultant or vendor as a result of such direction by the administering agency, the Consultant may request that the United States enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. 8. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1735, as added by Chapter 643 Stats. 1939, and as amended, No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons upon public works because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicaps, mental condition, marital status, or sex of such persons, except as provided in Section 1420, and any consultant of public works violating this Section is subject to all the penalties imposed for a violation of the Chapter. Signed: Title: Firm: Date: Page A3-4 25A-36 EXHIBIT 2 AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND INTERNAL SERVICE FUND ALLOCATION STUDY THIS AGREEMENT; is made and entered into this 1st day of May, 2018 by and between MEM -16C ., America-Cdn`sulting; LLC ("Consultant"), and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corpbid tion organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California Mity")• RECITALS A. On February 22, 2018, the City issued Request for Proposal No. 18-023, by which it sought a consultant to provide a full cost allocation plan and internal service fund allocation study for the Engineering and Administrative Services Divisions of the Public Works Agency. B. Consultant submitted a responsive proposal that was selected by the City. Consultant represents that it is able and willing to provide the services described in the scope of work that was included in RFP No. 18-023. C. In undertaking the performance of this Agreement, Consultant represents that it is knowledgeable in its field and that any services performed by Consultant under this Agreement will be performed in compliance with such standards as mayreasonably be expected from a professional contracting firm in the field. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual and respective promises, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES Consultant shall perform the services that were described in the scope of work that was included in RFP No. 18-023 and as more specifically delineated in Consultant's proposal, which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated in full. 2. COMPENSATION a. City agrees to pay, and Consultant agrees to accept as total payment for its services under this Agreement, the rates and charges identified in Exhibit B. The total sum to be expended under the term of this Agreement, including any extension periods, shall not exceed:$167,008. This sum is comprised of (1) the base amount of $151;825-:faiid (2) a 10%a,,�pntingency in the amount -_of $15,-183 for additional services at the City's sole discretion. b. Payment by City shall be made within forty-five (45) days following receipt of proper invoice evidencing work performed, subject to City accounting procedures. Payment need not be made for work which fails to meet the standards of Pa e 1 of 8 29A-37 performance set forth in the Recitals and Scope of Work, which may reasonably be expected by City. 3. TERM This Agreement shall commence on the date first written above and terminate on April 30, 2021, unless terminated earlier in accordance with Section 17, below. The term of this Agreement may be extended for up to two 1 -year periods upon a writing executed by the City Manager and CityAttorney. 4. PREVAILING WAGES Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on `public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the services being performed are part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 5. INDEPENDENT CONTRATOR Consultant shall, during the entire term of this Agreement, be construed to be an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. This Agreement is not intended nor shall it be construed to create an employer-employee relationship, a joint venture relationship, or to allow the City to exercise discretion or control over the professional manner in which Consultant performs the services which are the subject matter of this Agreement; however, the services to be provided by Consultant shall be provided in a manner consistent with all applicable standards and regulations governing such services. Consultant shall pay all salaries and wages, employer's social security taxes, unemployment insurance and similar taxes relating to employees and shall be responsible for all applicable withholding taxes. 6. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS This Agreement creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subconsultants to agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subconsultant prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Page 2 of 8 25A-38 Documents & Data which were provided to Consultant by the City. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents and Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at City's sole risk. INSURANCE Prior to undertaking performance of work under this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain and shall require its subconsultants, if any, to obtain and maintain insurance as described below: a. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance naming the City, its officers, employees, agents, volunteers and representatives as additional insured(s) and shall include, but not be limited to protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom and damage to property, resulting from any act or occurrence arising out of Consultant's operations in the performance of this Agreement, including, without limitation, acts involving vehicles. The amounts of insurance shall be not less than the following: single limit coverage applying to bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and property damage, in the total amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence, with $2,000,000 in the aggregate. Such insurance shall (a) name the City, its officers, employees, agents, volunteers and representatives as additional insured(s); (b)'be primary with respect to insurance or self-insurance programs maintained by the City; and (c) contain standard separation of insureds provisions. b. Business automobile liability insurance, or equivalent form, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. C. Worker's Compensation Insurance. In accordance with the California Labor Code, Consultant, if Consultant has any employees, is required to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance, Prior to commencing the performance of the work under this Agreement, Consultant agrees to obtain and maintain any employer's liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per accident. d. If Consultant is or employs a licensed professional such as an architect or engineer: Professional liability (errors and omissions) insurance, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per claim with $2,000,000 in the aggregate. C. The following requirements apply to the insurance to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this section: (i) Consultant shall maintain all insurance required above in full force and effect for the entire period covered by this Agreement. (ii) Certificates of insurance shall be famished to the City upon execution of this Agreement and shall be approved by the City. AA39 (iii) Certificates and policies shall state that the policies shall not be cancelled or reduced in coverage or changed in any other material aspect, by consultant, without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. (iv) Consultant shall supply City with a fully executed additional insured endorsement. f If Consultant fails or refuses to produce or maintain the insurance required by this section or fails or refuses to furnish the City with required proof that insurance has been procured and is in force and paid for, the City shall have the right, at the City's election, to forthwith terminate this Agreement. Such termination shall not affect Consultant's right to be paid for its time and materials expended prior to notification of termination. Consultant waives the right to receive compensation and agrees to indemnify the City for any work performed prior to approval of insurance by the City. 8. INDEMNIFICATION Consultant agrees to defend, and shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, consultants, special counsel, and representatives from liability: (1) for personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief arising out of claims for personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage, which may arise from the negligent operations of the Consultant or its subconsultants, agents, employees, or other persons acting on their behalf which relates to the services described in section I of this Agreement; and (2) from any claim that personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief is due by reason of the terms of or effects arising from this Agreement. This indemnity and hold harmless agreement applies to all claims for damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of the events referred to in this Section or by reason of the terms of, or effects, arising from this Agreement. The Consultant further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and pay all costs for the defense of the City, including fees and costs for special counsel to be selected by the City, regarding any action by a third party challenging the validity of this Agreement, or asserting that personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable reliefdue to personal or property rights arises by reason of the teams of, or effects arising from this Agreement. City may make all reasonable decisions with respect to its representation in any legal proceeding. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. 9. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEIVINIITCATION Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, representatives, and employees against any and all liability, including costs, and attorney's fees, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright contained in the work Page 4 of 8 25A-40 product or documents provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to this Agreement. 10. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any services, expenditures, and disbursements charged to the City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of the City to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. 11. CONFIDENTIALITY If Consultant receives from the City information which due to the nature of such information is reasonably understood to be confidential and/or proprietary, Consultant agrees that it shall not use or disclose such information except in the performance of this Agreement, and further agrees to exercise the same degree of care it uses to protect its own information of like importance, but in no event less than reasonable care. "Confidential Information" shall include all nonpublic information. Confidential information includes not only written information, but also information transferred orally, visually, electronically, or by other means. Confidential information disclosed to either party by any subsidiary and/or agent of the other party is covered by this Agreement. The foregoing obligations of non-use and nondisclosure shall not apply to any information that (a) has been disclosed in publicly available sources; (b) is, through no fault of the Consultant disclosed in a publicly available source; (c) is in rightful possession of the Consultant without an obligation of confidentiality; (d) is required to be disclosed by operation of law; or (e) is independently developed by the Consultant without reference to information disclosed by the City. 12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CLAUSE Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not have interests, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with performance of services specified under this Agreement. 13. NOTICE Any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be properly given if delivered in person or mailed by first class or certified mail, postage prepaid, or sent by fax or other telegraphic communication in the manner provided in this Section, to the following persons: Pe5of8 29A-41 To City: Clerk of the City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702-1988 Fax 714- 647-6956 Executive Director Public Works Agency City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-21) P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Fax 714-647-5635 To Consultant: MGT Consulting Group 2251 Harvard Street, Suite 134 Sacramento, CA 95815 Attn: Brad Wilkes A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party. Thereafter, any communication shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. If sent by mail, communication shall be effective or deemed to have been given three (3) days after it has been deposited in the United States mail, duly registered or certified, with postage prepaid, and addressed as set forth above. If sent by fax, communication shall be effective or deemed to have been given twenty-four (24) hours after the time set forth on the transmission report issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, addressed as set forth above. For purposes of calculating these timeframes, weekends, federal, state, County or City holidays shall be excluded. 14. ERCLUSIVIT'Y AND AMENDMENT This Agreement represents the complete and exclusive statement between the City and Consultant regarding the subject matter herein, and supersedes any and all other agreements, oral or written, between the parties. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and any attachments hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. This Agreement may not be modified except by written instrument signed by the City and by an authorized representative of Consultant. The parties agree that any terms or conditions of any purchase order or other instrument that are inconsistent with, or in addition to, the terms and conditions hereof, shall not bind or obligate Consultant or the City. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein. 15. ASSIGNMENT Inasmuch as this Agreement is intended to secure the specialized services of Consultant, Consultant may not assign, transfer, delegate, or subcontract any interest herein without the prior Page 6 of 8 25A-42 written consent of the City and any such assignment, transfer, delegation or subcontract without the City's prior written consent shall be considered null and void. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the City's ability to have any of the services which are the subject to this Agreement performed by City personnel or by other consultants retained by City. 16. WAIVER No waiver of breach, failure of any condition, or any right or remedy contained in or granted by the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by the party waiving the breach, failure, right or remedy. No waiver of any breach, failure or right, or remedy shall be deemed a waiver of any other breach, failure, right or remedy, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing so specifies. 17. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by the City upon thirty (30) days written notice of termination. In such event, Consultant shall be entitled to receive and the City shall pay Consultant compensation for all services performed by Consultant prior to receipt of such notice of termination, subject to the following conditions: a. As a condition of such payment, the Executive Director may require Consultant to deliver to the City all work product completed as of such date, and in such case such work product shall be the property of the City unless prohibited by law, and Consultant consents to the City's use thereof for such purposes as the City deems appropriate. b. Payment need not be made for work which fails to meet the standard of performance specified in the Recitals of this Agreement. 18. NON-DISCRIMINATION Consultant shall not discriminate because of race, color, creed, relation, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, or disability, as defined and prohibited by applicable law, in the recnritment, selection, training, utilization, promotion, termination or other employment related activities or in connection with any activities under this Agreement. Consultant affirms that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 19. JURISDICTION -VENUE This Agreement has been executed and delivered in the State of California and the validity, interpretation, performance, and enforcement of any of the clauses of this Agreement shall be determined and governed by the laws of the State of California. Both parties further agree that Orange County, California, shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought or arise out of, in connection with or by reason of this Agreement. Pa 070f6 29A-43 20. PROFESSIONAL LICENSES Consultant shall, throughout the term of this Agreement, maintain all necessary licenses, permits, approvals, waivers, and exemptions necessary for the provision of the services hereunder and required by the laws and regulations of the United States, the State of California, the City of Santa Ana and all other governmental agencies. Consultant shall notify the City immediately and in writing of its inability to obtain or maintain such permits, licenses, approvals, waivers, and exemptions. Said inability shall be cause for termination of this Agreement. 21. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS a. Each undersigned represents and warrants that its signature herein below has the power, authority and right to bind their respective parties to each of the terms of this Agreement, and shall indemnify City fully, including reasonable costs and attorney's fees, for any injuries or damages to City in the event that such authority or power is not, in fact, held by the signatory or is withdrawn. b. All exhibits referenced herein and attached hereto shall be incorporated as if fully set forth in the body of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year first above written. ATTEST: MARIA D. HUIZAR Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM SONIA R. CARVALHO City Attorney By: D J#n M. Funk ssistant City Attorney RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Edwin "William" Galvez, P.E. Acting Executive Director Public Works Agency CITY OF SANTA ANA RAUL GODINEZ II City Manager CONSULTANT Name: Title: Page 8 of 8 25A-44 EXHIBIT A ELECTRONIC COPY RFP NO. 18-023 MARCH 8, 2018 PROPOSAL FOR FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES WWW.MGTCONSULTING.COM 25A-45 ****+ M GT CONSULTING GROUP SUBMITTED TO: HAYLEY GILBERT CITY OF SANTA ANA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR RECEPTION, ROSS ANNEX SANTA ANA, CA 92701 SUBMITTED BY: J. BRADLEY BURGESS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 2251 HARVARD STREET, SUITE 134 SACRAMENTO, CA 95815 916.443.3411 hburcessgm atconsu Itinz.com BRAD WILKES DIRECTOR 2251 HARVARD STREET, SUITE 134 SACRAMENTO, CA 95815 916.990.1256 Ibradwilkes@ema il.com CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA RFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY MARCH 8, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS COVER LETTER & CONTRACT AGREEMENT FIRMAND TEAM EXPERIENCE_.................................................................._.................._................_...4 MGT QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE.............................................................................4 ALLOCATION AND RATE DEVELOPMENT FOCUS AND EXPERTISE....................................5 PROJECT TEAM (ALL CALIFORNIA BASED) ................................... ........ I ............... I............ 5 RESUMES..:...................................................................................................................... 6 UNDERSTANDINGOF NEED__ .................. ............... _............................. ............ _... _................ _...7 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................:............ 7 UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT •RELATED TO 10117601, 08617611 AND 08617612............................................................................. 7 DESIGN OF CURRENT PROJECT............................................:..................................:........7 PROJECTAPPROACH........................................................................................................ 8 C05T PLANS - COMPARING THE TWO TYPES OF PLANS .................................................. 9 RELEVENT PROJECT EXPERIENCE ........................... .._..................... ................... I... ....... _..... ........ I I LIST OF CALIFORNIA AGENCY CLIENTS...........................................................................11 EXPERIENCE WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS...........................................................................11 REFERENCES............. .._.... _...... _.............. _.:......................................................................._..........._......12 COST ALLOCATION / INDIRECT COST RATE AND ISF STUDY REFERENCES ......................12 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULE ............. ................................................ ........ .................. 13 PROJECT DELIVERABLES.................................................................................................16 PROJECTTIMELINE........................................................................................................16 3. FEE PROPOSAL (SUBMITTED SEPARATELY) ............. .................................. _.......... _........ _....... 18 4. CERTIFICATIONS ................................... ......... ......... _........ ............................. ....... _..._.... _............. 19 ATTACHMENT 3-1: NON -COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT...........................................................20 ATTACHMENT 3-2: NON -LOBBYING CERTIFICATION.....................................................21 ATTACHMENT 3-3: NON-DISCRIMINATION CERTIFICATION .......................................... 22 APPENDIX A. RESUMES 4** MGT CONSULTING GROUP 25A-46 W W W.MGTCONSULTI NG.COM I. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MARCH 8, 2018 RFP NO.18-0231 1 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY c PAGES• CONSULTING GROUP L Y_ - 25A-47 **+** MGT CONSULTING GROUP March 6, 2018 City of Santa Ana — Public Works Administration Attn: Ms. Hayley Gilbert, Public Works Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza, Third Floor Reception, Ross Annex Santa Ana, CA 92701 Subject: Request for Proposal # 18-023 -Cost Allocation Plan/ ISF Preparation Dear Evaluation Committee: We appreciate the opportunity to provide the City of Santa Ana (City) with this proposal to prepare the City's Public Works Agency cost allocation plan (CAP), indirect cost rate proposal (ICRP) and full cost staffing billing rates. We believe that our firm, MGT of America Consulting, LLC (MGT), offers the City solutions that will meet your specific objectives while providing the best overall value. Specific to the RFP requirements, our projects deliver. Firm and Team Experience. The proposed MGT team has performed hundreds of similar projects for California city governments. Over a 32 -year period Mr. Wilkes has gained extensive experience With the principles of cost allocation plans, indirect cost rates and full cost hourly billing rates for city staff. Our project team has worked with hundreds of California local governments— including all 20 of the largest city governments in California. Understanding of the City s Needs. This is a complex project, with many moving parts. The project spans multiple years, a variety of funds, departments and divisions. The calculations must include citywide costs, department costs, division costs and individual staffing cost. The project requires a detailed knowledge of the City's financial chart of accounts, budget formats, and staffing and billing reports. This massive amount of data must be collected, reviewed and formatted to produce a specific, accurate and detailed set of calcutions. These calculations are then used to fund a very Important part of city government through billings made to outside city agencies. Relevant Project Experience. While our project manager, J. Bradley Wilkes, has participated in thousands of indirect cost studies for city and county government, even more relevant, he has been performing this same study for the City of Santa Ana annually since 2012. He is very well versed in the budgeting, accounting, organizational workings of the Public Works department, 601 Administration, and the internal service funds, enterprise funds and general fund operations of the department—specifically fund 86. In addition to this experience, Mr. Wilkes has worked on many other projects in the City, including general fund user fee studies, citywide cost allocation plan projects, etc. This experience provides our projectteam with a very well-rounded knowledge of all areas of the city government. Rapid Project Schedule. The city has several pressure points related to this project. There are several project audiences - all having different interests, schedules and demands related to the outcome of this project. It will take significant effort to meet the deadlines, gather and interpret reams of data reports, understand the formats required by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and successfully meet the expectations of all project stakeholders. Because of our project team's specific experience in Santa Ana, MGT is in the best position to ®+®•* 2251 Harvard St., Suite 134 1 Sacramento, CA 95815 1916.443.34111 mgtconsulting.com 25A-48 City of Santa Ana, California March 6, 2018 ♦♦4 A Page 2 juggle all that is required in a timely manner to meet those varied requirements. Depending on the availability of data, our scope of services, project team experience and proposed project schedule will allow a project completion date of May 28"', We believe this is doable and will allow a cushion of several weeks before the deadline of June 301", in case unforeseen obstacles arise. • Project Cost Proposal. Our cost proposal allows for several on site visits, including staff meetings, and interactions with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Caltrans, as needed. • Defensible & Transparent Calculation Methodology. Our cost allocation models are rigorous, accurate and proven. They are also completely transparent, with services and costs all readily Identified and presented in a comprehensive fashion. As a firm, our consultants have submitted and negotiated thousands of Indirect cost calculations to both federal and state authorities, Including the State Controllers Office, Caltrans, HUD, FAA, etc. In the past year alone, MGT has submitted over 300 local agency ICRPs and 20 cost allocation plans to state cognizant agencies. MGT began operations In 1974 and we currently have 90 professionals throughout the country. Our headquarters Is in Tallahassee, Florida, with major regional offices in Sacramento (CA), Pasadena (CA), Denver (CO), Tampa (FL), Wichita (KS), Bay City (MI), Austin (TX), and Olympia (WA). MGT of America Consulting, 516 North Adams Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 850.386.3191 J. Bradley Burgess Executive Vice President 916.595.2646 bburgess@mgtqonsulting.com MGT Financial Services 2251 Harvard Street, Suite 134 Sacramento, CA 95815 916.443.3411 J. Bradley Wilkes Director 916.990.1256 jb radwilkes @gmail.com Please contact me if you have any questions or comments about this proposal at: 916.595.2646, or at bburgess@mgtconsulting.com. This proposal is In response to the City's RFP and commits the firm to compliance with all procedures identified in the contents. Specij%ally, as required by the RFP, MGT concurs with any and all provisions as contained in the RFP Attachment 2 — Agreement. MGT also acknowledges receipt of Addendum 1 of the RFP, dated March 2, 2018. We look forward to being of continued service to the City of Santa Ana. Sincerely, J. Bradley Burgess Executive Vice President, Financial Services MGT of America Consulting, LLC 25A-49 FIRM AND TEAM EXPERIENCE MGT QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE MGTS FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION concentrates on user fee studies, cost allocation plans (full cost and 2 CFR Part 200), state mandate cost reimbursement claiming, Indirect cost rate proposals, and internal service fund rate calculations. These are our core service offerings and our consultants have been leading Innovators and practioners in this field, many with decades of experience. MGT has the deepest consulting bench In the local government cost and revenue industry. This depth assures our clients that: (1) MGT has the ability to complete the assignment no matter what happens to any one particular consultant, (2) if a project time -line has to be advanced, MGT has the resources to commit additional staff to the engagement, and (3) with a combined 479 years cost plan experience, there are no issues that our team has not addressed, and that expertise Is only a phone call away. The table below visually displays MGTrs consulting depth. Dawn Bak 10 g Brooke Bmndenburg 14 ❑uls Brunette 3 3 8 Guy Burdick 3 13 ra 8uBesi:� �:.� r,17 r. ,r..17 �'.:28:_s. �' .'''��,o.• `',�.`' Mah Urpenter 77 27 -.L Dlse D'Auteull a 23 21 ]3 PeWa0yer 12 12 16 A9chelle Gartetl 10 Olana Hancock 3 9 WonalaChapelle 21 Untie Leahy ]2 12 Dianne Malo•Janes 31 Ieny Mo%emle 27 27 32 Jim Olson 31 31 31 31 31 Pawl Patel 12 1 Pdepadsh 27 1�3' do Pa_o .::,rte`= �y39 :• X2+7-- .G ,.'}�G-.�:.-1 � lusGnpeterson 1 Christlne Reynolds u IS Ruben Was 3 3 3 BmtSchlyer 18 18 5 a a 9 7 Only Sona s 5 u 6hldey Sewell 30 3o 22 21 13 Donna Smigiel 27 27 bordie Stryker 18 18 17 BrettSwendig 4 3 Jeff Wakefield 28 28 4l9 ,321 151 94 1:99 .131 . 47 i' 26 .20 n 4,, ,5. E •,3 19 16 13 24 . QD,. , Its , ' 16 Q CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 1 �®® MGT I RFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN /ISFALLOCATION STUDY PAGE4' CONSULTING GROUP 25A-50 _____ FIRM AND TEAM EXPERIENCE ALLOCATION AND RATE DEVELOPMENT FOCUS AND EXPERTISE MGT understands jurisdictions like Santa Ana. We do more city cost allocation plans and full cost rate and ISF studies than any other firm. Our consultants have a wealth of experience designing new cost allocation and rate/ISF charging formats, which will be a critical knowledge base for this assignment. In addition to our experience and technical expertise, one of MGT's greatest strengths is our consultants' ability to communicate effectively with our clients, from direct operational staff that provide these services, up to managers, directors, and elected officials. Our project team has completed thousands of indirect cost studies during their long careers. Most of these studies have been for California city and county clients. Our team has submitted and negotiated these projects with federal and state cognizant agencies such as, HUD, Caltrans, the FAA and the State Controller's Office. PROJECT TEAM (ALL CALIFORNIA BASED) The MGT proposed project team includes: MGT EXECUTIVE—J Bradley Burgess 28 years of experience (firm decision maker) PROJECT MANAGER —J Bradley Wilkes 32 years of experience (principal consultant) PROJECT STAFF — Erin Payton 31 years of experience (as backup for Mr. Wilkes) REGIONAL STAFF—Sara Beemer 15 years of experience (as needed, Southern California based) MR. J. BRADLEY BURGESS, EXECUTIVE -IN -CHARGE MGT Project Team Mr. J. Bradley Burgess is an Executive Vice President with MGT and is responsible for MGT Financial Services. He is also a member of our firm's Board of Directors. He will serve as the executive -in -charge for this engagement. He will ensure that Santa Ana is unconditionally satisfied with the services received from MGT consultants. Mr. Burgess is an expert in project management, having managed or directed over 340 projects over his 28 -year local government consulting career. He has taught hundreds of government finance officials Indirect cost theory and application through numerous training sessions. He is a frequent presenter at conferences and workshops for clients, state and local governments, and state associations. Mr. Burgess has been a corporate officer at David M. Griffith & Associates, DMG-Maximus, Maximus, Public Resource Management Group and MGT of America Consulting, LLC. e♦®�®MGT CIN OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 k PAGE'S CONSULTING GROUPRFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN/ ISF ALLOCATION ST UDY 1 25A-51 FIRM AND TEAM EXPERIENCE .. Mr. Burgess has a Master's degree in Public Policy Studies from the University of Chicago, Harris School of Public Policy Studies. He also has a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri. MR. BRAD WILKES, PROJECT DIRECTOR Mr. Wilkes will serve as the project director and primary contact for this engagement. In this role he will attend all on-site interviews, develop all project deliverables and conduct and attend all project meetings. Mr. Wilkes has held many consulting responsible positions over his 32 -year career, Including company vice president, founder and CEO of governmental consulting firms and national expert on issues related to governmental cost accounting. MS. ERIN PAYTON, PROJECT DIRECTOR Ms. Payton will serve as the backup project director for this engagement. In this role Ms. Payton will be available to attend initial on-site Interviews, develop cost allocation plans and all department overhead rates, and provide training and coordination over the life of this engagement. Ms. Payton will also closely monitor the project timeline against milestones and deadlines. Ms. Payton is a Director with MGT and has more than 30 years of experience providing public -sector consulting services. She manages our West Coast cost plan and user fee practice. She has a background in local government consulting focusing on cost allocation development, user fee rate calculations, and jail rate studies. She is the one of the most experienced cost analysts in the western United States, having completed more than 200 cost plan and user fee studies for local governments. Prior to joining MGT, she was a senior manager and director for management consulting firms PRM, Maximus, and DMG. MS. SARA BEEMER, COST ALLOCATION SPECIALIST Ms. Sara Beemer is a Manager with MGT and an expert in cost allocation plan development. She resides In the Southern California area and has day to day responsibility for many of the MGT projects in that area. Ms. Beemer is responsible for all day-to-day activities of as many as 20 California city and county clients (in any given year), from as large as Orange County to as small as the City of Healdsburg. She has successfully prepared morethan 100 cost allocation plans. Prior to Joining MGT, she worked for both the City of Claremont (Finance Department), and the City of Redondo Beach (Police Department) where she was responsible for budget preparation; and monitoring, analyzing, and the approval of all budget and grant expenditures. RESUMES Resumes for our proposed team members are provided in APPENDIX A: RESUMES. ®°**® MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 PAGE.6 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY - 25A-52 UNDERSTANDING OF NEED IIII Eel 2 The City of Santa Ana (City) has requested consulting assistance to prepare 1) a Public Works Administrative CAP which allocates costs in 10117601 (includes linking to the citywide CAP), 2) an indirect cost rate proposal (ICRP) for operations within fund 86, and 3) full cost hourly staffing rates for staff members in budget units 08617611 Design and 08617612 Construction. All aspects of the project must also adhere to the requirements of the federal circular 2 CFR Part 200 and state agencies, such as Caltrans. These deliverables are specialties of MGT of America Consulting, LLC (MGT). We have been preparing these analyses for the City of Santa Ana for the past five years. As a consulting group, we have delivered more of these analyses to more governmental jurisdictions than all our current competition combined. We believe we can deliver all requested services to the City's complete satisfaction and achieve the City's overall goals and objectives. In Just the past year, MGT has submitted for approva I by the State Controller's Office and Caltrans over 3001CRPs and 20cost allocation plans for our local government clients. UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RELATED TO 10117601, 08617611 AND 08617612 These three key departments, within Public Works, operate as ISFS. As such, they are charged with recovering their full cost each year. Full cost is defined as an operating budget, department administrative support and citywide administrative support. The PW department is one of the largest operations in the City. With nearly 200 full time and part time staff members, PW consists of a variety of funds, including general fund operations, Internal service funds, enterprise funds and special revenue funds. This project will focus on a subset of these funds. Specifically, 10117601 PW Administration, 08617611 Construction Engineering and 08617612 Design Engineering. Each of these organizations operate as ISFs. In accounting terms, an ISF Is self-funded though charges to customers who use their services. In past years these funds have not always been successful in recovery of their full cost through these charges. This is a very important issue to Public Works and to the City, as a whole. The correction of this funding Issue is the key purpose of this project. The answer does not only lie in arcane cost accounting rules and procedures, but perhaps even more Importantly, it is a communication and planning challenge as well. DESIGN OF CURRENT PROJECT There is no better way of developing the understanding of a project, than doing it. The MGT project team has years of experience preparing this exact scope of services for many California city governments, including many public works departments. Specifically, MGT and Santa Ana Public Works staff designed the current format and methodology of the City's PW cost allocation plan, indirect cost rate proposal and full cost hourly staff rates in 2012. The project was designed to meet all federal and state formatting requirements and details. Our project manager has been working on this project since its conception. Our team has intimate detailed understanding of the needs, challenges, history and requirements for this M GT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CAUFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 PAGE ©e®�� o*o** M GROUP RFP NO. 18-0231 1 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDYL. CONSUL25A-53 UNDERSTANDING OF NEED project. All the necessary project files, formats, calculation and methodologies have already been created and tested over the past five years. These formats are ready for the 2016/17 fiscal year data to be entered and calculations made. MGT uses the same format that is suggested in the federal and state circulars and that are used in all our state and federal related work. Our projectteam gained valuable Insight and experience preparing and submitting the 2014/2015 project to Caltrans. The resulting desk audit and the work performed guiding the City through that submission will prove extremely important as the next series of submissions are prepared. It is one thing to read about cognizant agencies submission requirements — it Is far better to have participated in such a submission. One benefit of working through one year of submission Is that MGT has been working with the City In setting goals for data accuracy improvement, time keeping system requirements, staff training, and for Improving communication strategies for state approval authorities and with the customer—OCTA. Because of our current experience with Santa Ana Public Works, MGT has matched in-house formats, tested excel methodologies, proven strategies, and tried and true processes with knowledge gained over 30 years of negotiations with federal and state authorities. Bringing these pieces of the project puzzle together is a great advantage MGT as we approach this endeavor. PROJECT APPROACH Cost allocation plans and ICRPs are essential tools for municipal fiscal management. Typically, our clients desire to establish and maintain a well-documented and defensible plan that can be used to recover Indirect administrative costs in a variety of internal and external contexts. MGT is a nationally recognized specialist in developing cost allocation plans and assisting our clients with cost allocation plan implementation. Our analysis will allow the City to account for the actual cost of providing numerous services within city operations and to calculate hourly staff rates that will recover all allocated costs using a clear, equitable and legally defensible method. MGrs cost allocation plans provide our clients with exceptional financial and managerial information. Examples of useful and meaningful Information that can be extracted from the project results include: • Compliant documentation forstate or federal reimbursement • Defensible interfund transfers • Establishing user fees and hourly billing rates • Identification of administrative expense The chart below illustrates each of the four major steps of the project: 1. Allocation of citywide costs to all departments in the city using a citywide CAP 2. Allocation of PW administrative costs (10117601) to PW functions using a departmental CAP 3. Development of an indirect cost rate for fund 86 operations using a ICRP 4. Calculation of full cost hourly rates for staff members in fund 86 design and construction 0 CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 CONSULTING GROUP ®M GT RFP NO. 18.0231 1 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY PAGE B ' 25A-54 -- UNDERSTANDING OF NEED .. FULL COST CALCULATION METHODOLOGY COST PLANS - COMPARING THE TWO TYPES OF PLANS FULL COST VS. FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLANS: Cost allocation plans are a series of complex calculations that require an understanding a jurisdiction's financial reports, administration structure, and operational services and programs. These calculations are typically presented In two types of plans — a Full Cost plan or a plan that conforms with 2 CFR Part 200 (Formerly OMB Circular A-87) Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. It is possible to use the latter for all costing purposes, but in certain cases, an agency would not maximize its revenue recovery by using this plan. To fully calculate the full cost of city services, a City may consider a Full Cost Allocation plan. However, if the calculations from the CAP are to be used for federal of state reimbursement, the 2 CFR 200 CAP is the document typically required. In this section, we will provide a discussion of both types of plans. Local agencies provide services that include administrative and support expenditures which are not allowable for federal reimbursement. These expenditures, however, are appropriate for allocation under GAAP principles and guidelines. This allocation methodology is often referred to as a Full Cost allocation plan. It can be generalized that a Full Cost allocation plan is applicable for Internal purposes such as recovering indirect costs from enterprise funds, special revenue funds and other funds, as well as included In establishing user fees, permits and applications, billing rates, hourly rates and costs of special services. Using federal guidelines, which are now codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 200, local governments may be reimbursed for administrative and support expenditures if they are documented in MGT CITY OF SANTA AN/, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 PAGE 5 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN/ ISF ALLOCATION STUDY 25A-55 UNDERSTANDING OF NEED a cost allocation plan and indirect cost rates that are compliant with the principles contained in the Circular. Generally, 2 CFR Part 200 compliant cost allocation plans are more restrictive than Full Cost plans, include fewer allowable indirect costs, and apply to external purposes such as recovering indirect costs on federal and state grants and awards. The table below describes the objectives, typical uses and considerations associated with both types of cost allocation plans. • Identify the true costs of administering all city departments, divisions and programs. - Justification for charging the proportional cost for city administration and FULL COST support to internal sources, or external sources in the case of billing rates and user fees. • Typically,result in 15% higher returns than 2 CFR Part 200 plans. 2:CFR PART 200 identify administrative costslallowable, under 2. CFR Part 200 and. distributing those costs: on an equitable: basis: Charging adminand overhead, costs to'gmnt_s, clairhs and other uses thatspecifcally require 2' CFR;P.art.200 use. • Charging non -General Fund funds for administrative and support services. • Recovering citywide administrative and support costs in hourly and billing rates. • Recovering citywide administrative and support costs in use fees and rates. • Budgeting and resource allocations. • Charging overhead costs to. federal grants: • Charging overhead'coststo, state grants andSB'90. claims. • Provides a conservative view of citywide' administrative.and. support Costs: • Administrative and support costs allowable under GAAP. Plan conforms to 2 CFR Part 200 principles but is not as restrictive. • Is not submitted for review to a cognizant agency. • Basis for transfer of dollars from non -GF to the General Fund. Ifthis type of plan.is used. for grantor claim use, 2 CFRPart,200 requiresthat an annual plan be prepared. Maybe, reviewedby.-a cognizant' agency. 4****Y M G T CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO, 18-0231 1 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY 25A-56 PAGE 10. RELEVENT PROJECT EXPERIENCE LIST OF CALIFORNIA AGENCY CLIENTS The following lists are representative samples of our California based studies that our proposed project team has completed (cost allocation plans, Indirect cost rate development, full cost rate studies, etc.) While our experience Is so varied and includes local governments in nearly 20 states, our focus for this proposal is on agencies of comparable size to Santa Ana and neighboring cities in Orange County. A complete, unabridged client list is available upon request. Los Angeles Bakersfield City of Orange San Diego. Riverside NewporttBeach San Jose Stockton Los Alamitos LSan Francisco. Chula Vista, ', Irvine Fresno Fremont Huntington Beach Long Beach twine -Garden Grove --- Sacramento San Bernardino La Habra Oakland: —� Mode"sfo T _ gana'Point i w� Santa Ana Oxnard Costa Mesa Anaheim Fontana V Orange County EXPERIENCE WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS As mentioned earlier, the MGT project team has experience with each of the largest 20 city governments in the state. In addition, most of the Orange County cities have also been clients. The work done for these clients includes: • Cost Allocation Plans (citywide, countywide, and department -specific) • Indirect Cost Rate Proposals (ICRP's) • Development of Fully Burdened Hourly Rates • User Fee/Cost-of-Service Studies It is fair to say that our project team is among the most experienced in the country. The combination of the experience gained specifically with Santa Ana Public Works, and generally with other large agency clients, makes MGT uniquely qualified to successfully complete this project. ®�® MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 1 I Av�®Ao7!NG GROUP RFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY ll' ! PAGE 25A-57 REFERENCES COST ALLOCATION / INDIRECT COST RATE AND ISF STUDY REFERENCES Contact Mr. Scott Wagner Title: Finance Officer Phone: 707.543.4670 E -Mail., swaener@srcitv.ore Work Performed. Preparation of Full Cost and 2 CFR Part 200 cost plans, development of ISF allocation methods, full cost hourly staffing rates. 2014 — current. Contact:. Ms. Sharun;Koike• Title: Accounting Manager Phone: 310.412.8724 E -Mail. skoike0citvofinzlewood.ore Work Performed. Annual preparation of the City's Full Cost plan, 2 CFR Part 200 cost plans and ISF allocation methods (submitted to federal agencies for review and approval). 2014 — current. Contact:; Ms. Stefany Toll, Title: Accounting Manager Phone: 415.923.2207 E -Mail: stollra¢olden¢ate.or¢ Work Performed: Annual preparation of the District's 2 CFR Part 200 cost plans and indirect cost rate for Engineering (submitted to Caltrans for review and approval). Current client. Contact: Ms. Guadalupe Reyna--Coffin. Title: Financial Services Supervisor Phone: 415.473.6753 E -Mail. Grevnacoffin@marincountv.ore Work Performed. Annual preparation of 2 CFR Part 200 cost plan to the State Controllers Office; assistance with desk and field audits (if necessary). Current client. ®**+® M GT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 11 PAGE 12 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 18-0231 I PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY I 25A-58 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULE As a result of our experience over the past 5 years with Santa Ana Public Works, this scope of work has been refined, tested and proven. While this is true, we never stay static and are always working to Improve our methods, presentations, and formats. The project schedule Is aggressive given the vast amount of project data that is required, the number of reviews necessary and the heavy demand placed on the project by state requirements. MGT is committed to meeting this schedule, the stated scope of services and allowing for an early submission to Caltrans. The following detailed work plan provides the step by step process proposed for this project. Meet with city personnel who have responsibility or a high Interest in the cost allocation plan project. This meeting will refine the specific objectives, requirements, measurements, and schedule of the project. F1351me D O •' • O Conduct an initial and Introductory training session with key city personnel and project stakeholders. Project consultants will work with city personnel to establish the objectives, content, and list of attendees for this meeting or presentation. This session is vital to successful project results including approval by operating department officials. Agenda items for these meetings or presentations could Include: • Review the project scope, objectives, and schedule. • Review available financial and allocation data. • Summarize the purpose for calculating the cost allocation plans. • Review example summary reports produced by the project. • Discuss example applications produced by the project. • Review and confirm the federal and/orstate requirements. • Address potential areas for additional direct or indirect cost recovery. 3; fGOL•LECT BASIC FINANGO AND "ORE RAT MAT- _s4 Y Continue collection and review data such as organization charts, expenditure statements, budgets, personnel counts, salary reports, and time keeping statistics. Project consultants will work with city personnel to develop and gather the needed data in the most efficient way possible. The review of this data will provide the structure for the cost allocation plans including the determination of allocating and receiving departments. • e o Meet with managers and staff of 601, 611 and 612 to determine the allowable expenditures, services provided, charge backs or direct bills, personnel providing the services, the recipients of the provided services, and appropriate transaction data. 4&** MGT CITY OF SANTAANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8,2018 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY iPAGE13' 25A-59 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULE • # • Using the City's organizational structure, budget and staffing information, and what we have learned from Caltrans review of the 2014/2015 project, MGT will fine tune the basic structure of the cost allocation plan, identifying central service (or allocating) departments and operating (or receiving) departments. Central service functions will be determined based on timesheets, assignments, activities, or other allowed methods. Once staff members and their corresponding salaries are distributed Into functions, other department costs such as materials and supplies will also be distributed Into the same functions. This task breaks a department Into central service functions, and cost pools which can then be allocated throughout the organizational structure using meaningful, measurable, and auditable allocation bases. Determine an appropriate allocation base for each function in each central service department. This determination will serve as the basis for allocating the allowable costs In each function to the recipients of the service. Project consultants will request corresponding transaction data from central service department personnel. Central service departments will allocate costs to all departments and funds. This allocation methodology ensures the fairest and most accurate distribution of costs as opposed to a methodology that singles out particular departments or funds for maximum allocation. • .•I •I • • ®• • a Process the draft cost allocation plan using the MGT proprietary cost allocation software. The cost allocation plan will Include summary and detail reports. Summary reports in the cost allocation plan will provide information on the dollar amounts allocated from each central service department to every receiving department. The detailed reports in the cost allocation plans provide information on the expenditures, allowable costs, incoming costs, personnel distribution, functions, and allocation bases for every central service department. MGT's proprietary cost allocation software incorporates a double step-down methodology, is technical and detailed, has a self -auditing feature, and has been used for over 250 cost allocation plans in the past five years - many submitted for federal and state approval. The Microsoft Windows-based software is written In a relational database and uses Microsoft Excel as a report writer. This platform provides unlimited flexibility in calculating, formatting, and reporting Information. Charts and graphs can be used to explain and illustrate allocation information. Statistical Information is automatically produced that compares allocation totals to receiving departments (funds) from year to year. The project director and the project consultant will undertake an internal review process to raise the accuracy of the cost allocation plans and ensure city personnel do not waste time reviewing substandard or Incomplete work. Additionally, the MGT proprietary cost allocation software automatically generates self -auditing schedule that reconciles the sum of all central service department expenditures to the sum of all allocated costs. *® MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 { ®t'+RFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY PAGE 14 CONSULTING GROUP 25A-60 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULE • . WE Meet in Santa Ana with city personnel and provide copies of the draft results of the cost allocation plan. This step is an opportunity to review preliminary results, address questions or concerns, and make changes as necessary. r RR•CES-S, FINAL �KOJECT DOCUMENTS Process the final cost allocation plans after addressing any Issues or concerns raised in Task 9. Provide the required printed original copies and electronic copy (Adobe PDF file) of each of the final cost plans and overhead rates following confirmation that the work is final by the City's project manager. Each cost allocation plan will contain: • A narrative that clearly defines the purpose, uses, and goals of the plan. • Descriptions of the methodology and procedures. • Descriptions of the central services and the allocation bases utilized to allocate costs. • Actual distribution of indirect costs to programs. • Summaries of all allocations and the resulting charges to all operating departments and funds. Assist with a presentation of the final project results to the City's elected officials either in a work session or at a public meeting if requested. This presentation will include a high-level overview of the project and the applications, Implications, and anticipated benefits to city operations. Detailed Information will be presented as requested. Conduct a post -project training session with key city personnel and project stakeholders. This training session will provide information on reading, Interpreting and extracting data from the recently completed cost allocation plans. This session will also reinforce current applications for the cost allocation plans results, as well as provide additional applications for the cost allocation plan results. **♦MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 'PAGEFIS CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO.18-0231 I PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PIAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY CN 25A-61 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULE .• PROJECT DELIVERABLES PROJECT TIMELINE • • Because of current relationships, MGT proposes to kick the project of by 1) obtaining much of the basic project data using the cities website. Fund, department and division actual expenditures can be downloaded In advance of any on-site meeting, and 2) setting up last year's spreadsheet formats to prepare for the new 16/17 project data. MGT proposes to meet April 9th, just a few days after project award. At this meeting we will review our data list of requirements and meet with city staff to organize the new project year. a. Citywide cost allocation plan — obtain from Finance b. 10117601 PW Administration cost allocation plan c. Fund 86 (611 and 612) indirect cost rate proposal d. Fund 86 (611 and 612) full cost hourly -rates e. Review time keeper system and staff use thereof— ensure accurate data is being entered f. Review any changes to format or methods that may be requested by Caltrans —PROJECT3. FIRST DRAFT— APRIL 30TH MGT has scheduled to use all the data gathered In the first four weeks of the project and produce a working draft of the project deliverables listed In 2. A -D above. MGT will use the next three weeks to continue gathering data, formatting spreadsheets and developing a solid second draft to be delivered and reviewed on site May 21" MGT will work on site with city staff to fine tune a review of final project numbers and formats necessaryto submit a package to Caltrans. This step Is set for May 7'h and will work through until May 28th. irimill.irdi• The project goal for submission to Caltrans Is set for May 281h. This Is a reasonable goal given the background, experience knowledge of city staff and of the MGT project team. This also allows a 4 to 5 - week cushion In case of unforeseen challenges arise during the project period. 00000MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 P4GE'16,` CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY , 25A-62 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULE . . Project Scope/Schedule - Santa Ana Engineering Rates °ego M GT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MARCH 8, 2018 I ppGE,17 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 18-0231 1 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY — 25A-63 uuxaR lux Y¢x nnlnuro¢-A70 nr nw[ ACMI¢ DLuveufm 1rA¢ nAvr Duumx r¢axr F uzF r re Lae nn u m uF en un uM ¢M fOMM131t R11wtm.WwYa1MvMQWmMer[»InBbtmen ul. N»lAM 1 5 SOM / /' •/ / / / UMOTN 1 C/Pm+vQ.cmPYlaol»IbLW bb IP01[[IORiRIFOWPA:O1rYti• W,vriv M Iw.W.nll RlRI0V1®NtD NwLAM. 1 S 1NM I)MOI'. W1161f11 Ygw.M1bu.luMli sr»F»b 00.VT GIOMTONLN MDAr.SWon"NRILAM 1 ! 90% aW MellnlcmllemeRl AVMWIr -a; / e/ // ��',� A // f / ` / {. gzca.tuewti;np.^ Nutslx I 1 D% "IIxINes�eeeiviWfmmrwnnn. NmifM I 1 w. ]IrwQ16dO1IWW..Mp B)^Ie.»bryB ngnelrvrt' NRIIBM 1 5 O%/ emo;w»nelil.n.e as.n«.e Sf Mlrvn Cni W.wo»WSIMn3ewljnl.z N.LM 1 S ML • ••1)Aap4d y lsume¢lzmD NIILM 1 S 0% »r »�(Im,Y�lwva eOn m'Q UJ14e4rjnµl' nIBiLBM t 5 M.. I)Seleryme4yfneuuntlnf0 NRIL9M 1 5 y - NPIIBIx 1 1 0% IRIVOWWIINW eYNROf16W1YiWA1lWVIlORSIfRIxf ' M¢M4¢141iSSNR®OH A°RILIM 1 1 Olf / / � II LYnIVI /Ivnblmphmmlrnrw y ,ryuene/II OD¢ItNrLI WMAi W[YMNmfROM Cvbma. TM,¢}My �.LW NRIL9M U/vVNVPeb IvrNO¢Am Mejwn^^-b. o) NRILBM 1 I 'Nf fommrmY IO Qvle mf mq. B)RFYBWNRM OiMfW IMt¢VPIOSIf11y NPR9M 1 1 Mt UBYnannvinWr�BYQmM ..LBM 1 I OII })Y4/emefM e/emv>F»Q bTmOb lxe/oN ltlu NWIIM 1 1 %{ llfm1un40071 ftl�l e'rIe - NRIUM ,1 1 O% Il rmauq n��ryYm/nycmRVMLfM 1 1 C{ NMfIVj_15�OMfi4JILlIDAy ss0.7ECAI(U�110N3�Tp Uq•lEt ONiIRM¢IINGRI1RRrLY *PR)GM •. • II fOI IWAQm'v fAlhJ6ro-ymr [BrvrO.tllll^m _ r »n wu¢iw5D1w N»LSaM a 1' m ax.. »FGnGm,InM1pvpmolma,nJfnBmx, OR+rfIWSWDKIWPMO NPoLIOM f 1 W Rzxmxcum ))Rm'ro nM.mnMwtimtonypvn kl0mll PMCIAYSTOIbO= MIF. MAJU M . I ��� UMIfOMUAD011tlHRLMTAD110 DM¢ MAI RM' .3 1 Of • ��I rr" /�J� {J� MNrM 1J.IieueGmwmtipuG^mlanQ<ajB^B M MAY'rM" � 3 l ' O% • »RM.w}nQGNt NrMrtivLLYwr.S RYGo11 • MRYIM , 'S v •_ .. .•• v+. -- - ... MRIISr.vr. _ ,� %/ y.a y {WAL raonq¢RG¢ _ - I r �;.. I tmino.W tmLum w.rw.mg- MAY 1Rm .' »r�./—G✓=1 »k IwTwibCIAfWTi,v IIS7 7 I %4 �� %! »w^•lee km-'ur •,reprGeeareurlwmwenm � �"OX60i1G, 7 I O%. fra6b - 1 1 pOC4nbbQ Ir✓nrvntiMenai .ONGOING } } 0% me/ »Rbn) » MNb uBiWyl Mtlrym O[IAb IAOVIDCRR'ONO1YSrAN3 trORl JMGOIx6 7 r 0%' rl.e+w,en I nzmeuermkJ �unnmm B s ax ' f %l �� ' J °ego M GT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MARCH 8, 2018 I ppGE,17 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 18-0231 1 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY — 25A-63 3. FEE PROPOSAL (SUBMITTED SEPARATEL ®'®O M GT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 }( ,PAGE!16 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO-18-0231 I PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY C 25A-64 4. CERTIFICATIONS ®�e�®MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8,2018 PAGE -19, CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 1&0231 I PROPOSAL FOR COSTALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY 25A-65 NONCOLLUSION AFFIDAVIT (Tifia 23 United States Code Section 112 and Public Contract Code Section 7106) To the CITY OF SANTA ANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS In accordance with Title 23 United States Code Section 112 and Public Contract Code 7106 the BIDDER declares that the bid is not made In Ure hrterest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid Is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the BIDDER has not dircetfy or indirectly induced or solicited any other BIDDER to put in a false or sham bid, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived or agreed with any BIDDER or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding; that the BIDDER has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agmement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the BIDDER or any BIDDER, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element oftha bid price, or of that of any other BIDDER, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested In the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the bid are true; and, father, that fire BIDDER Ilan not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged Information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham bid. Note: The above Non -collusion Affidavit is part of the Proposal. Signing this Proposal on the signaluro Portion thereof shall also constitute signature of this Nun-cullushm Affidavit. BIDDERS are cautioned that making a false c5l0cation may subject the ocrdfrer to criminal prosecution Signed State of8ailferaia I-t-ORrb County of NiusBo po06H ubseribedand swore to (or affirmed) before me on this day of Y'H 20 by /KAt/ before me. proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared *Notaryublic S=ignatum +'�D�[4ti. CUWOIAHOSANG i WCOMMISSIONNG01077 y}+ elf EXPIRES: Odober1S, 2021 *.,orf:?„` eordedtbnr NOtaYPAGcthdrm%n Notary Public Seal City of Santa Ana RFP Page A3-1 25A-66 The prospective participant certifies, by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief'; that: 1. No federal appropriated finds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member ofCongress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress In connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification ofany federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 2. if any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for Influencing or attempting to Influence any officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress In connection with this federal contract' grant loan, loan or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit a "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities". This certification Is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered Into. Submission of this certification Is aprerequlsite for malting or entering Into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who falls to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty ofnot less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require that the Ianguagc of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts, which exceed $100,000 and that all such sub reeiplents shall certify and disclose accordingly. Firm MGT of America Consulting, LLC signed and printed P Title Executive Date March 6, 2018 .;.ii.n+r�hsy'.•q.:i: �' �:h� �iimt rt�"'��-,+�„i�.vkyz::,r :.�'^:'.-5�2�:.�,..F. ::�Y Vii;?«s :'T .?4e,�2 Lc�q`': ..g `:...4 f 'yt +�:pc-�'''�S+Ii4�r _r.•.` y }.3 T. .,S�i..rl�.,. ,� yY�” �` u �.h {� City of Santa Ana RFP Page A3-2 25A-67 The undersigned consultant or corporate officer, during the performance of this contraot, certifles as follows: 1. The Consultant shall not discriminate against my employee or applicant for employment because of imce, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Consultant shall take afibmadve action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment witbout, regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, Such action shall Include, but not be limited to, the following. employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other foam of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. 2. The Consultant shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Consultant, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religlon, sex, or national origin. 3, The Consultant shall send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he/she has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice to be provided advising the said labor union or workers' representatives of the Consultant's commitments under this section, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment. 4. The Consultant shall comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary ofLabor. 5. The Consultant shall furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his/her books, records, and accounts by the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation, to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders, 6. In the event of the Consultant's non-compliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders, the contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or In part and the Consultant may be declared ineligible for Author Government contracts or federally assisted oonstruction contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Execution Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided In Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulations, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. 7. Tho Consultant shall include the portion of the sentence immediately preceding paragraph (1) and the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (7) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted City of Santa Ana RFP Page AM 25A-68 by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontract or purchase order as the administering agency may direct as means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event the Consultant becomes Involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a sub -consultant or vendor as a result of such direction by the administering agency, the Consultant may request that the United States enter into such litigation to protect the Interests of the United States. 8. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1735, as added by Chapter 643 Stats. 1939, and as amended, No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons upon public works because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicaps, mental condition, marital status, or sex of such persons, except as provided in Section 1420, and any consultant of public works violating this Section is subject to all the penalties imposed for a violation of the Chapter. Signed• Title; J. Bradle Burgess, ecutive Vice President Firm; MGT of America Consulting, LLC Date: March 6, 2018 City of Santa Ana RFP Page A3-4 25A-69 APPENDIX A: RESUMES ♦®sem® MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 PAGE 24! CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO.18-0231 1 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN/ ISF ALLOCATION STUDY 25A-70 APPENDIX A RESUMES •. ®♦��®- J. BRADLEY BURGESS Executive Vice President, Financial Services MGT CONSULTING GROUP I bburgess@mgrconsulcing.com Mr. Burgess has performed a wide variety of cost -of -service studies for California local governments and state associations since 1990. Over the past 28 years, he has developed a broad expertise in local government consulting, with a primary focus on cost allocation methodologies, user fee analysis, state and local claims and grant applications, negotiations with state and federal authorities, and Indirect cost rate proposal development. He has served as a corporate officer for the following consulting firms: MGT of America, Public Resource Management Group, LLC (founder), Maximus, DMG-Maximus, and David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. Mr. Burgess has personally served over 190 cities, and 49 of the 58 counties within the state of California during his 24 -year consulting career. He has also personally provided consulting services to 19 of California's 20 largest counties. Mr. Burgess also has extensive transit district experience, having worked with such districts as Los Angeles Metro Transit, SF Muni, BART, Oakland Port, San Diego Port, Charlotte Transit, and Sound Transit in Seattle. Recent projects include cannabis research and costing projects for the City and County of Denver, the State of Maryland and several counties in California. He also prepared the budget for Gary Indiana School Corporation as part of the Emergency Management Team hired by the State of Indiana in 2017. AREAS OF EXPERTISE • California State Mandate Reimbursement (SB 90) • Cannabis Polity, Decision -Making and Costing • Local Government Cost Allocation Plans • Indirect Cost Rate Proposals • Cost of Service / User Fee Study • Emergency Financial Management PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP Mr. Burgess is an Executive Vice President at MGT Consulting and serves on the firm's Board of Directors. He Is also the Manager responsible for MGT's Financial Services Division, and Is one of three vice presidents responsible for the division nationally. Mr. Burgess was one of three founding partners of Public Resource Management Group (PRM). PRM became the fastest growing local government costing services practice in the nation. During his tenure with DMG and Maximus, Mr. Burgess was one of two vice presidents responsible for the $5 million local government consulting practice, with 30 professional consultants, and over 400 clients served per year. In addition to 58 90 claiming, additional representative consulting studies include appropriation limitation studies, Indirect cost rate proposal preparation, full cost and 2 CFR Part 200 federal cost allocation plans, userfee studies, development Impact fee analysts, and legislative analysts. PERTINENT STATEWIDE EXPERIENCE Mr. Burgess served as the Associate Director of the California Cities SB 90 Service and the CSAC SB 90 Service. In this rapacity, Mr. Burgess worked on behalf of all California local agencies to reach resolution on statewide Issues such as the Open Meetings Act Impasse; developing unit costs for several current mandates; and has assisted agencies such as San Francisco, Santa Barbara County, Orange County, Santa Clara County, Sacramento County, Monterey County, Marin County and San Mateo County, as well as large municipalities such as Oakland and Sacramento to defend SB 90 claims under audit by the California State Controller. Mr. Burgess has also represented local agencies before the California Legislature, the Commission on State Mandates and the Bureau of State Audits. Mr. Burgess has also provided over 35 statewide training sessions on cost accounting theory, and presentations to over 20 state associations. o���®MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA ) MARCH 8, 2018 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY 25A-71 PAGE Z5' APPENDIX A RESUMES J. -BRADLEY BURG_ Executive Vice President, Financial SI MGT CONSULTING GROUP I bburgessQmgtconsulo PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Mr. Burgess has a broad background in government, public polity, and journalism. For three years, he edited and pub a monthly professional magazine for the University of Missouri. Mr. Burgess was the IDOT budget analyst for Got Thompson in the State of Illinois, and a consultant for Continental Illinois National Bank In Chicago. Mr. Burgess journalist for a dally newspaper In Kansas City, had professional projects in Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia. EDUCATION Masters of Public Policy Studies Degree, University of Chicago, Harris School of Public Policy Studies Bachelor of Journalism Degree, University of Missouri WORK EXPERIENCE MGT of America Consulting, LLC, Executive Vice President— Finandal services, MGT Boord of Directors Public Resource Management Group LLC, Founding Partner MAXIMUS, Inc., Vice President DMG-MAXIMUS, Inc., Vire President David M. Griffith & Associates, LTD., Vice President, Director, Manager, Senior Consultant State of Illinois Bureau of the Budget, Budget Analyst, Department of Transportation ®0**® MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY 25A-72 PAGE,26'. APPENDIX A. RESUMES •. ®�®♦® J. BRADLEY WILKES Senior Associate MGT CONSULTING GROUP I jbradwilkes@gmaiLcom Mr. J. Bradley Wilkes specializes in governmental cost of service studies. He has a 30 -year background in local government consulting focusing on cost allocation development, user fee rate calculations, indirect cost rate calculations, information technology, operations reviews, and cost of services for state and local governments. He is the former regional director for all DMG-Maximus consulting offices in the western United States. During his consulting career; Mr. Wilkes served as a consultant, manager, senior manager, vice president, regional director, and board member of DMG and DMG-Maximus, both national management consulting firms. Mr. Wilkes received his bachelor of arts from Brigham Young University, and his master of business administration from California State University. EDUCATION MBA, California State University B.A. Business, Brigham Young University WORK EXPERIENCE MGT of America Consulting, LLC, SenforAssociate, 2007 -Present Public Resource Management (PRM), Principal Owner and Founder, 2001-2007 DMG Maximus, Regional Director, ice President Consultant/Seniar Manager, Consultant/Stof(Member 1982-2002 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE PROJECT DIRECTOR Mr. Wilkes was the managing principal at PRM. He was the project director for many of PRM's largest projects. His 30 years of experience in the field of governmental cost accounting has included working with local and state agencies across the country. He has been a project director for cost analysts projects for many western state government projects including California, Oregon, Nevada, and Hawaii. COST ALLOCATION Mr. Wilkes is an expert in the analysis of the indirect costs within governmental agencies. He has led the software design of three cost allocation plan systems and has conducted cost allocation plan projects for many state and local governments in the western United States including the state governments in Nevada and Hawaii and large local governments such as San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, and Sacramento, California; Spokane and Tacoma, Washington; and Portland, Oregon. RESEARCH AND STATISTICAL BACKGROUND Mr. Wilkes has been a lead consultant and manager on several statistically related projects. He has developed numerous database systems which documented a vast array of data related to user fee statistics charged by governmental agencies in California and Washington. ®*m*® M GT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN/ ISF ALLOCATION STUDY 25A-73 PAGE27 APPENDIX A RESUMES ERIN PAYTON MGT CONSULTING GROUP I epayton@mgtconsulung.com Ms. Payton has been performing governmental cost of service studies since 1986. She has a background in local government consulting focusing on cost allocation development, user fee rate calculations, and jail rate studies. Ms. Payton Is recognized as one of the country's leading experts on cost of service analysis. She has been instrumental in developing numerous cutting-edge analytical tools to define governmental costs and revenue enhancement opportunities. She has participated in local government consulting for more than 30 years in both direct cost analysis and project management. Ms. Payton has directly participated in and managed literally hundreds of cost of service studies for local agencies ranging in size from a population of just a few thousand up to several million. EDUCATION University of California, Santa Barbara WORK EXPERIENCE MGT of America Consulting, LLC, Director, 2007 -Present Public Resource Management (PRM), Senior Manager, 2003-2007 David M. Griffith & Associates (DMG), Director, 1986.2002 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Ms. Payton has successfully delivered cost allocation plans, user fee studies, and Jail rate studies for the following governmental entities: California Cities and Counties • City of Alameda • City of Hermosa Beach • City of Brentwood • City of Huntington Beach • City of Burbank • City of Inglewood • Butte County • Inyo County • City of Calexico • City of La Habra • City of Calistoga • Lake County • City of Camarillo • City of La Mesa • City of Campbell • City of La Mirada • City of Chino Hills • City of Long Beach • City of Culver City • LA County Envtal Health • City of Cupertino • City of Los Gatos • City of Daly City • Madera County • Town of Danville • City of Manhattan Beach • City of EI Centro • Marin County • City of Emeryville • City of Menlo Park • City of Encinitas •City of Milpitas • City of Fairfield • City of Mission Viejo Other Cities and Counties • City of Bainbridge Island, • City of Ocean Shores, WA WA • Portland (OR) • Clatsop County, OR Development Commission • City of Hillsboro, OR • Tillamook County, OR • City of Des Moines, IA • City of Spokane, WA • Johnson County, KS • City of Tacoma, WA • Lane County, OR • Umatilla County, OR • Morrow County, OR • City of Morgan Hill • City of Napa • Napa County • City of Newport Beach • City of Ontario • Orange County • Orange Co ROV • Orange Co ITC • City of Pittsburg • Placer County • Plumas County • Port of San Diego • City of Rancho Cucamonga • City of Redlands • City of Redondo Beach • City of Richmond • City of Roseville • City of Houston, TX • Clackamas County, OR • Coconino County, AZ •City of Kennewick, WA • Fulton County, GA • City of Lake Oswego, OR • City of Medford, OR • City & County of San Francisco • City of South San Francisco • City of San Jose • San Mateo County • Santa Barbara County • City of Santa Clara • City of Santa Monica • City of Santa Rosa • City of Suisun City • City of Sunnyvale • City of Temecula • City of Torrance • City of Watsonville • City of Wheatland • City of Whittier • City of Woodland • Multnomah County, OR • City of Portland, OR • City of Salem, OR • Snohomish County, WA • Spokane County, WA • Thurston County, WA • City of Issaquah, WA • Final County, AZ oma®+® MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 19-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY 25A-74 PAGE 28 APPENDIX A RESUMES ♦*®** SARA BEEMER Manager MGT CONSULTING GROUP I sbeemer@mgtconsulting.com Ms. Beemer Is a Manager assigned to the MGT Financial Services in our West Coast division. Prior to her working as a costing services consultant she had five years of experience working in local government agencies and has also been on the other side of costing service projects during those years. While working for the City of Claremont Finance Department, Ms. Beemer prepared auditing schedules, assisted with the preparation, development and analysis of the Budget, assisted In the preparation of monthly financial reports, prepared and verified financial results, notes, statistical information, and formats for the city's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). As an administrative analyst with the City of Redondo Beach Police Department, Ms. Beemer was responsible for budget preparation; and monitoring, analyzing, and the approval of all budget and grant expenditures. She also served as the financial liaison to city departments and grantor agencies. AREAS OF EXPERTISE Ms. Beemers local government and consulting experience, has given her the knowledge and experience of governmental budgeting, finance, accounting and operations; generally accepted accounting principles and costing principles. The following are the types of projects she has managed and/or participated on: • Development of cost allocation plans (CAPS) in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). • Development of CAPS in accordance with federal principles. • Assisting agencies In maximizing general fund cost recoveries from federally funded programs, enterprise and special revenue funds, and other non -general fund sources. • Development and negotiation of indirect cost rate proposals (ICRPs). • Development of activity based cost of service and user fee studies. • Development and negotiation of charge -back rate methodologies and rates. Ms. Beemer has assisted with and developed several cost allocation plans, indirect cost rate proposals (ICRPs) and user fee studies. EDUCATION B.S., Finance, California State University, Fullerton WORK EXPERIENCE MGT of America Consulting, LLC, Senior Consultant, August 2007- Present PRM, Consultant, 2006-2007 City of Redondo Beach, CA, Administrative Analyst, 2004.2006 City of Claremont, CA, Analyst, 2002 - 2004 REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS • Bainbridge Island, WA • Inglewood, CA • Bakersfield, CA • La Habra, CA • Bell Gardens, CA • La Mesa, CA • Buckeye, AZ • LA Metro, CA • Calaveras Co, CA • Lake Oswego, OR • Castle Rock, CO • Livermore, CA • Culver City, CA • Los Angeles, CA • Daly City, CA • Madera Co, CA • Odessa, TX • Orange County, CA • Pleasanton, CA • Rancho Cucamonga, CA • Redlands, CA • Redondo Beach, CA • Riverside Co, CA • Sacramento, CA • Santa Cruz, CA • Santa Rosa, CA • Spokane, WA • Spokane County, WA • Surprise, AZ • Vallejo, CA • Ventura Co, CA • Visalia, CA of*°c M GT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO, 18-0231 1 PROPOSAL FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY 25A-75 PAGE29 • Delta Co, CO • EI Paso, TX • Fort Bragg, CA • Hayward, CA • Healdsburg, CA • Huntington Beach, CA APPENDIX A RESUMES 4** MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO, 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COSTALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY 25A-76 :PAG E,30, SARA BEEMER Manager MGT CONSULTING GROUP sbeemer@mgtconsulting.com • Mesa Co, CO • San Diego, CA • Whittier, CA • Miami, FL • San Leandro, CA • Windsor, CA • Montrose Co, CO • San Mateo Co, CA • Woodland, CA • Napa Co, CA • Santa Barbara, CA • Yuba Oty, CA • Newport Beach, CA • Santa Clara, CA • Yuba County, CA 4** MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO, 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COSTALLOCATION PLAN / ISF ALLOCATION STUDY 25A-76 :PAG E,30, FLORIDA 516 North Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 4320 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 CALIFORNIA 2251 Harvard Street, Suite 134 Sacramento, California 95815 3579 East Foothill Boulevard, Suite 144 Pasadena, California 91 107 COLORADO 8200 South Quebec, Suite A3 #184 Centennial, Colorado 80112 KANSAS 13303 West Maple, Suite 139 #177 Wichita, Kansas 67235 MARYLAND 18310 Montgomery Village Avenue #520 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879 MICHIGAN 2343 Delta Road Bay City, Michigan 48706 NORTH CAROLINA 10030 Green Level Church Road, Suite#1267 Cary, North Carolina 27519 TEXAS 1801 East 51n Street, Suite 365-504 Austin, Texas 78723 WASHINGTON 1420 Marvin Road, NE, Suite C #342 Olympia, Washington 98516 CONSULTING GROUP MGT ofAmerica Consulting, LLC www.mgtconsulting.com 25A-77 EXHIBIT B FEE PROPOSAL PUBLIC WORKS COST ALLOCATION PLAN PROJECT MGT proposes to perform the Public Works departmental administration cost allocation plan, the calculation of the Fund 86 indirect cost rate and full cost staffing hourly rates for a fixed fee of $21,560, Including expenses. Assistance with the negotiations with OCTA and Caltrans will be provided as needed, on an actual cost basis. L1. Electronic,Data Collectioh i — 10 -- '$220 $2,200; $220D 2. Project Kick Off Meeting 16 $220 $3,520 — $3,520 3: First Draft'(CAPs,'and;Rates) 24, $220 $5;280; $5;280 4. MGT Office Work 20 $220 $4,400 $4,400 [5., Review of Finb] Reports — — _ 12' — $220 $2;640: 6. Submit Final Reports to Caltrans 16 $220 $3,520 _ $3,520 If the City elects to renew or extend the contract for additional one-year contract periods, MGT's fee will be adjusted by 5% for each subsequent year. 25A-78 PW ADMINISTRATION ISF PROJECT Per the RFP instructions, MGT confirms our experience and desire to complete this part of the RFP as well. Mr. Wilkes and Ms. Payton have developed the cost accounting structure for numerous ISF operations within California city government. We look forward to working with staff in developing a scope of service and project schedule that will fit the city's needs. Our estimated number of hours and a preliminary broad outline Is provided below. 2. Develop lSFAccountingStructure $220 ---- _ _ — — --- -- -- — -- �3' Review.P.1N•Programs:and'Services _, _' . _ ---- —T — $220 _ _—_: F 4. Identify All Customers $220 _— _— r — -- -. - (5. Dete_rmmeAllocatlonBases --� .$220; _. 6. Prepare ISF Allocation $220 _ 7 ---CalculateilSFRates0._ 8. Prepare Management Guidelines $220 Any additional services requested by the City may either be negotiated at additional fixed, not -to -exceed rates, or charged on an actual cost basis using the following billing rates: r MGT Professional Staff Hourly Billing Rates Project Director $ 220 Senior Manager $ 185 Manager $ 170 Consultant $ 135 MGT CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I MARCH 8, 2018 1 FEE PROPOSAL. ; CONSULTING GROUP RFP NO. 18-02311 PROPOSAL FOR COSTALLOCATION PLAN/ ISF ALLOCATION STUDY 1 - 25A-79 25A-80