Minutes
Cary Town Council Subcommittee to Review the Town’s Bid Award Process
May 23, 2007
Subcommittee Members Present: Council Members Marla Dorrel Julie Robison
Subcommittee Members Absent: Council Member Nels Roseland
The meeting agenda follows:
1. Update of activities since the February 15, 2007 meeting. (Bill Coleman)
a. Focus Group
b. Revised Procedure
2. Adjourn
The focus group report is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit A. The revised procedure (showing changes recommended) is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit B.
Ms. Susan Moran, public information officer, gave an overview of the focus group. She stated some of the focus group participants had done business with the Town, while other focus group participants had not done business with the Town. The focus group was comprised of in-town and out-of-town firms. She stated the group thought our process is very a-political. She stated the group was clear that they did not want to see price considered at all in the procedure, but they felt good about how far we had come and appreciated being asked to provide input.
Mrs. Cheryl Perry, Procurement & Risk Services Manager, spoke about changes to the procedure based on focus group recommendations. She stated all references to bids have been removed and replaced with other more appropriate words. She stated the procedure now includes an “overview” as suggested by the legal department. She stated staff has added the word “prefer” a process of open competition, which gives us flexibility. She believes the procedure reflects that price is one criteria, however, it is not the most important criteria.
Ms. Dorrel referenced the second bullet on Page 2 of Exhibit B: “authorize the Town Manager to exempt (in writing) other particular projects from the provisions of NCGS 143-64.31 with the reasons and circumstances stated. (See Finance Policy 112.)” She asked if this exempts the exemption. Town Attorney Chris Simpson stated it gives the town manager the ability to exempt for reasons other than price (competition process). She stated the procedure includes a statement that the Town generally exempts contracts so we can consider price, but the town manager can determine to exempt particular projects based on non-price criteria. Mrs. Moran mentioned that the focus group thought this statement was confusing.
Mrs. Robison stated the statement above sounds like a waiver from open competition.
Ms. Dorrel stated her issue is with the word “exemption”, and she asked if the word “waiver” or another word could be used instead.
Mrs. Simpson stated if we don’t exempt we have to consider firms based on competence and qualifications and not price. She stated through this procedure we state we consider price to some extent, so we exempt projects from the state statute so we can apply our own procedure. She stated the procedure states that we generally consider fee, but the town manager can determine that there is justification for sole source, and this would be set out in the manager’s exemption.
Mr. Coleman stated staff will reword this section of the procedure.
Mrs. Robison questioned the paragraph on Page 2 of Exhibit B that reads: “It is the official policy of the Town of Cary to “prefer a process of open competition…” She stated it seems that the policy is to undertake a process of open competition unless the bullet points (exemptions) apply. Mr. Coleman stated this is accurate, and staff will change this wording.
Mrs. Perry stated they made clarifications to the procedure for the benefit of staff. She stated they removed the ranking guide and instead provided selection criteria, and when the team meets they will judge firms based upon the criteria in the request for proposals (RFP). Mrs. Mary Henderson, director of parks, recreation and cultural resources, stated item 5 in the procedure lists the elements of the RFP.
Ms. Moran stated after the focus group meeting the staff determined that each project is different, so it’s better not to have a prototype. Mrs. Perry added that criteria will be part of the RFP. Mrs. Robison asked if percentages will be part of the RFP. Ms. Moran replied no; she stated that the focus group wanted to see this in the procedure, but staff disagreed because each project is so complex and unique. Mr. Bailey, engineering director, stated when number systems are used, it creates unintended consequences. For example, he stated there may be a very strong team and the number may be so heavily weighted that it may give too much weight to a category, but it ends up not being the top criteria. He stated staff used to do this, and it was not uncommon for the high score not to be the favored firm. Mr. Bailey stated another concern is that the consultant would come in after the fact, compare the rankings and compare apples to oranges to come up with an inaccurate conclusion. He stated it puts the staff in a box that may result in a less than ideal firm.
Mrs. Henderson stated each team member reviewing the proposals brings their own expertise to the group. She stated staff looks at it as a tool instead of a decision-maker, and judgment is a factor.
Mrs. Robison stated without the ranking guide the firms may not understand the responses the Town expects. She wants a tighter definition of how evaluations will be done. She stated we want people to respond to the RFP in the best possible way, and if the RFP isn’t clear, then some people may not bother to respond.
Mrs. Perry stated the procedure calls for a presubmittal meeting, which gives bidders the opportunity to get clarifications and to ask questions so that the Town’s expectations are clear.
Mrs. Robison concurred that if people are serious, then they’ll attend the prebid meeting. Mrs. Henderson added that if we do a good job with the scope, then it will provide the focus.
Mr. Perry stated there is also an opportunity for questions to be submitted outside the presubmittal meeting.
Ms. Dorrel asked for an example of when there’s no value in a presubmittal meting. Mr. Bailey stated a geotechenical contract valued for a few thousand dollars would result in a lot of time and effort to have a presubmittal meeting, and it could lengthen the process significantly. He thinks that presubmittal meetings make sense for the major projects. He stated this procedure covers all projects (small to large). Ms. Moran stated the focus group agreed that simple projects didn’t need presumbittal meetings.
Mrs. Robison questioned item 8 of the proposal: “…and answers will be made available upon request.” Ms. Moran suggested to instead say that answers will be made available and leave out “upon request”. She stated all answers can be made available to all registered, interested parties. Mr. Bailey concurred with Ms. Moran.
Ms. Dorrel asked why the procedure does not include a mechanism for registering. Ms. Moran stated staff decided not to include this in the procedure, because it may vary from project to project.
Ms. Dorrel pointed out that item 7 of the procedure already stipulates: “… and answers will be made available.” She stated the change to item 8 will make it compatible with item 7.
Mrs. Robison asked if staff has provided information to council advising them when there’s been open competition vs. sole source exemption/waiver. Mr. Coleman does not think this has been communicated to council. Mrs. Robison asked staff to consider this as a matter of information, because she thinks it results in a more transparent procurement process. Mr. Coleman stated he can include this information in his quarterly update to council.
Mrs. Robison has questions about the various procurement decisions made by staff. Mr. Coleman stated staff will prepare a staff report that describes how the staff makes procurement decisions on projects of various sizes that don’t rise to the level of a formal RFP process.
Ms. Dorrel questioned why the staff recommends considering cost. Mr. Coleman replied that he thinks it is prudent business practice to know the highest cost estimate prior to making a decision. He stated often there are only minor differences in the firms, and in this scenario he thinks price should make a difference.
Mrs. Robison asked staff if they’ve ever discussed doing two separate envelopes, one for the technical evaluation and the other for the cost proposal. She thinks it would give the perception that the process is fair. Mr. Coleman stated we don’t always take the low bid. He stated if price is not provided, then it more than likely lengthens the negotiation process, which lengthens the entire process.
Ms. Moran stated in most cases staff looks at price after looking at all other criteria. She stated first staff determines the best people/firm, and then staff looks at price, although price is available to staff in the beginning of the process.
Assistant Town Manager Ben Shivar believes that the process that includes price up-front results in a better project, because it requires the bidders to look closely at their proposal. He stated companies don’t want to submit cost at all, because they want to drive the process.
Ms. Dorrel stated the procedure seems fair to everyone. She stated the original procedure was developed a long time ago, maybe in response to general statute. She stated staff has revisited the procedure over the past few months and has proposed appropriate changes. Finance Director Karen Mills stated staff reviews policies and procedures on a regular basis, and the practice of considering price has been confirmed by staff in these reviews.
Ms. Dorrel and Mrs. Robison confirmed that they are not interested in pursuing local preference beyond the current process.
Ms. Dorrel asked the next steps. Mr. Coleman stated staff will take the revised procedure to the operations committee to report back to council. He stated a separate staff report will be presented to the same operations committee meeting addressing the other issues noted in these minutes.
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.