HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1978/02/07 Item 18. CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 18
For meeting of 2/7/78
ITEM TITLE Resolution Approving Agreement with Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
for Consultant Services, and Appropriating Funds Therefor
_.~
SUBMITTED BY City Manager ,~-
~____-
ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES X NO )
At the meeting of November 22, 1977, the City Council accepted a staff report on a proposed
Operations Review Program, and approved the issuing of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a
consultant study of the Planning Department. On November 25, 1977, the RFP was mailed to
thirteen (13) firms and they were given until December 30, 1977 to respond. Eight (8) pro-
posals were received by the designated deadline.
On January 9, 1978, the proposals were screened by an in-house group and reduced to four (4)
finalists (see attached evaluation form). The review team consisted of the Deputy City
Manager, the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning.
Subsequent to that action, all responding consultants were notified of their status in the
selection process and interviews were set for Wednesday, January 11, 1978. Prior to that
date, one (1) finalist firm withdrew from further competition due to other commitments.
Representatives of the three (3) remaining consultant organizations were interviewed on
schedule by the following selection panel:
Lane F. Cole, City Manager
City of Chula Vista
David K. Knapp
Assistant Director (Productivity Improvement Project)
Financial Management Department
City of San Diego
James Verougstraete
Associate Director (Research)
Comprehensive Planning Organization
EXHIBITS '
Agreement X Resolution X Ordinance Plat Notification List
Other Eval. Form ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Appropriate $19,500 from the Unappropriated Surplus of the General Fund and place in
account 100-0210-5201 (Professional Services)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
COUNCIL ACTION
~ ~ ~
.°~n
A~~~~o
~ ~.::
..~
~, r,-L ~ cf: o~nia
~~w~ G~lLir
a ~..
-nat ea-,
1 #2
Supplemental Page 2
Item No.•18
Meeting of 2/7/78
All of the firms interviewed held excellent qualifications in the area of management audit
and industrial engineering (methods and procedures). Tradeoffs had to be considered between
an organization's overall reputation, the qualifications of project staff, quality of the
proposal, overall fee and client references. The three consultant organizations participating
in the final interviews were ranked, with the firm of Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. placing
first on the list. During the past two weeks, the Deputy City Manager has been negotiating
with this firm and an agreement has been prepared which incorporates the City's requirements
and contingent fee for services of $19,500. The sum of $20,000 was originally estimated as
the cost for this project.
The City's Request for Proposal (RFP) and the consultant's proposal, including subsequent
correspondence, are attached as exhibits to the agreement. However, major points will be
summarized here:
1. The project specifications call for a comprehensive analysis of the Planning
Department, including its relationship with related departments and activities.
The consultants will look at not only internal procedures but also the policy
foundations upon which they are based.
2. Citizen input will be obtained via interviews with relevant City commission
members (e.g., Planning Commission, Environmental Control Commission) and
local development engineering and architectural firms. A list of twenty (20)
such organizations has already been provided to the consultant.
3. The project team will have an office physically located in the City Manager's
complex. This should facilitate their work with both the Planning Department
and Administration, as well as provide privacy for confidential interviews.
4. The agreement incorporates a clear requirement for full documentation of the
methods and instruments utilized during the operations review. This should
assist any future in-house efforts in this area.
Assuming the approval of our agreement with Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. and the necessary
special appropriation, work is scheduled to begin on February 13, 1978. A final report
should then be available by the end of May, 1978. Many positive results are expected
from this effort.
LJW:mab
.,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM
Name of Project
Name of Firm
Evaluator Signature
/~
.. ~ ~T~~~~~i~
Date
Please rate the above firm according to each criterion below by circling the appropriate
number. The numbers may be interpreted as a range where 1 = inadequate and 5 = excellent.
The numerical "rating" should then be multiplied by the "ureight", with the resulting score
entered in the appropriate column. After completing the evaluation areas, all scores
should be added and entered at the bottom of the form. Subsequent to review of all pro-
posals, a relative numerical rank should be assigned to each consultant. Thank you.
I. Responsiveness to City RFP
A. Understanding of project and
recognition of potential
problems/obstacles
B. Originality of approach
C. Credibility and thoroughness
of work program and time
schedule
Rating
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
x Weight = Score
2
1
3
1. Are all proposal content
requirements satisfied?
If not, which ones are
missing?
2. Are all tasks properly ad-
dressed, including inter-
relationships?
If not, what is mi sing?
~•
D. Fee
1. Does the stated fee
include the cost of
ail required work?
If not, what is subject
to negotiation?
Ratin
1 2 3 4 5
x Weight • _ 'Score
3
2. Is the ratio of consu~tant
work hours to that of
in-house staff favorable to
the City?
II. Project Team Qualifications
A. Does the projectleader have 1 2 3 4 5
the necessary technical and
managerial background?
B. Do secondary personnel have 1 2 3 4 5
journeyman level analysis
experience?
III. Consultant Firm Reputation
A. Is the organization generally 1 2 3 4 5
well respected?
B. Are cited references relevant? 1 2 3 4 5
(Reference checking will be
done on finalists.)
IV. Overall Impression of the Quality 1 2 3 4 5
of the Proposal (tone, clarity
and completeness).
3
2
1
2
3
TOTAL SCORE (100 possible)
Numerical Rank