Memorandum

City of Lawrence

City Manager’s Office

TO:	David L. Corliss, City Manager
FROM:	Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager
CC:	Cynthia Boecker, Assistant City Manager
Date:	October 7, 2009
RE:	Follow Up Regarding Consultant Selection Discussion

At its meeting on August 25, 2009, the City Commission continued discussion regarding the City’s consultant selection policy as well as additional information provided by staff.  As a result of the discussion, the City Commission requested additional information, a summary of which is provided in this memo. 

1. Additional information from Johnson County:
1. Ask Johnson County officials how the scope is defined ahead of the RFP and what is the associated necessary staffing to accomplish this.  Related issue:  What would be the impact on City of Lawrence staff to define this scope ahead of the Request for Proposal (RFP)?

I followed up with Brett Wood, Senior Purchasing Administrator for Johnson County.  As a reminder, Johnson County utilizes a modified qualifications-based two phase process.  The first phase evaluates proposals on a qualifications basis.  Ratings are based on experience, performance, project approach, etc.  If invited for an interview for the second phase, vendors are asked to provide cost information.  The cost information goes into the final evaluation criteria, depending upon how important cost is to the project.  Attached is an example of a RFP from Johnson County for architectural services for a public works facility.  Also attached is the cost form that breaks down various cost elements and is requested by Johnson County of vendors proceeding to the second phase of the process. 

In order to request the cost information, Johnson County has a well defined scope of work with the initial RFQ/RFP.  The detail to this level is needed so that cost information can be requested during the second phase.  I asked Mr. Wood about the professional staff at Johnson County that assists with the scope creation.  Johnson County does have professional architects and engineers on staff and they either write or assist with writing the scope and developing the project budget.  Additionally, he indicated that Johnson County also typically has “indefinite delivery contracts” with professionals, such as architects or engineers.  These professionals, through the contract with the County, are “on call” to assist with scope preparation in certain cases and in doing so, their firm is not allowed to respond to the RFQ/RFP.  Also, for complex projects, such as the construction of a building, Johnson County often has a study completed prior to the issuance of an RFP/RFQ that further defines this scope.

Staff was also requested to provide information on the potential impact on the City of Lawrence if the Johnson County method would be adopted here.  The City does have professional engineers on staff in both utilities and public works.  However, having staff more involved in writing the scope for complex projects would add to workload and in some cases, staff may not possess the unique expertise to identify a particular design solution in a scope.  For some more simplistic or straightforward projects, staff could certainly draft a scope, though the previous comment on workload addition may apply in some cases.  It should also be noted that there are no architects on staff.  Please note additional comments on this subject at the end of this memorandum. 

2. How does Johnson County define projects that trigger the pure qualifications based selection (QBS) process to maintain compliance with the Brooks Act?

Essentially, all engineering and architectural services are procured by Johnson County using the modified QBS process.  However, any projects with state funding or federal funding that require the QBS process, triggers a modification of the Johnson County to a pure QBS process, which essentially eliminates the request for cost information and consideration of cost as a factor in the second phase.

3. How long have the Johnson County procedures been in place?  Did the procedures change from a pure QBS to the current process?  If so, why the change and has it achieved desired outcomes?

Johnson County’s current process was updated in December 2004.  However, according to Mr. Wood, Johnson County has utilized this modified QBS process long before that date.  I asked Mr. Wood if Johnson County still saw a substantial number of vendors submit proposals on their projects.  He indicated that was the case.  As an example, he was currently considering responses to the RFP for architectural services previously mentioned.  In response to this, 15 proposals were received and 7 firms were selected to proceed to the second phase of the process. 

4. Has the hybrid QBS process impacted the number of interested vendors responding to Johnson County projects?

Because there were no changes made in the process, there is no change in respondents.    

2. Additional information about City of Lawrence projects:
1. Provide a report on the number of architectural/engineering procurements over the past three years.  See attached table.
2. Of these procurements, how many involve the use of federal funds?  Of the approximately 60 architectural/engineering RFPs or RFQs that were issued since 2006, 9 involved the use of federal funds.  This is approximately 15%. 

Summary:

It would be appropriate for the City Commission to provide direction regarding this issue.  Upon receipt of the direction, staff could draft any policy changes for consideration, if that is the desire of the Commission. 

It appears that the following are several possible alternatives:

1. Consider modification of the City’s process to mirror the Johnson County modified QBS process.
1. The Johnson County process remains a viable option for the City Commission to consider if changes are desired to the City’s current process.  However, if the City Commission wishes to proceed with changes in this manner, some changes to the Johnson County process would be suggested.  Staff would suggest that in the event the scope of a project would be sufficiently complex that either the City doesn’t have the adequate staff expertise, or writing the scope would demand time beyond that which staffing would allow, that cost information not be requested by firms coming for an interview. If a project is relatively straightforward and the scope can be written rather easily, cost information would be requested.  Staff would also suggest that in the event that cost information would be requested, the cost factor would vary, as in the Johnson County process, with the relative importance of cost to that particular project. 
2. Another alternative would be to utilize the current City process, but utilize consultant fee guidelines which relate to industry standard fee as a percentage of construction costs, which vary slightly in accordance with project complexity.  Negotiated fees could be reported with reference to the guidelines. 
3. Make no changes to the City’s current QBS process. 

Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.