Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-15 - AGENDA REPORTS - AWARD OF CNTR FOR FIXED ASSET (2)AGENDA REPORT ity MManag Approval Item to be presented by: Barbara Boswell UNFINISHED BUSINESS DATE: October 15, 1997 SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PROVIDE FIXED ASSET INVENTORY AND VALUATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services City Council award the contract for fixed asset inventory and valuation services to Asset Valuation Services, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $24,000. Fund have been budgeted in FY 1997-98 in account number 2200-8001. 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute and sign all documents, subject to City Attorney approval. At the September 9, 1997 City Council Meeting, staff presented to Council an item to award a contract for fixed asset inventory and valuation services to Asset Valuation Services based on a recently issued request for proposal. At that time a representative from Valuation Resource Management (a vendor that competed for the project) addressed the Council regarding his dissatisfaction with staffs recommendation to award the contract to Asset Valuation Services. Council directed staff to continue this item for consideration at a future Council Meeting. On September 24, 1997, an administrative hearing was held, handled by Ken Pulskamp who had not previously been involved in the process, to review the concerns of Valuation Resource Management and the overall request -for -proposal process. The outcome of the hearing was that staff was directed to go forward with the original recommendation to award the contract for fixed asset inventory and valuation services to Asset Valuation Services. The minutes of the hearing are attached for review. ME Apr da Item: 01' Agen A The following information was provided to City Council on the September 9, 1997 agenda report: The services requested in the RFP included conducting a physical inventory of all the City's tangible assets, valuing and tagging the assets, and providing comprehensive reports, records, and manuals that will assist the City in maintaining an effective fixed asset tracking program for both accounting and insurance purposes. Fifteen (15) RFP's were sent to various companies known to specialize in fixed asset inventory and valuation. Five companies, American Appraisal Associates, Marshall & Stevens, Inc., Valuation Resource Management, Bar[Scan, Inc., and Asset Valuation Services submitted proposals. The proposals were evaluated based on criteria set forth in the RFP using an objective scoring system. City staff then conducted in-person interviews with representatives from the top three companies that had ranked highest in the initial evaluation. Based on all criteria, it was determined that Asset Valuation Service is the most qualified firm to perforrrf this service. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS No feasible alternative action has been identified by staff. FISCAL IMPACT The total contract amount for this project is estimated to be $24,000. Funds in the amount of $24,000 have been previously appropriated and am currently available in the Finance Contractual Services account (2200-8001) for fiscal year 1997-98. ATTACHMENTS A) The minutes from the September 24, 1997 Administrative Hearing B) Letter dated October 3, 1997 to Greg Friz of Valuation Resource Management C) Hearing Officer Opinion from the September 24, 1997 Administrative Hearing sAfin\apriIVfp-fa\agenda2.wpd CITY OF SANTA CLARITA FIXED ASSET VENDOR HEARING SEPTEMBER 24,1997 The hearing started at 2:01 p.m. Ken Pulskamp introduced himself to the representative from Valuation Resource Management, Inc,, Greg Friz. Ken reviewed the agenda and asked that one person speak at a time. Ken stated he had no previous knowledge of the Fixed Asset Request for Proposal (RFP). The following were present: Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager; Steve Stark, Director of Administrative Services; Barbara Boswell, Accounting Manager; April Jordan, Accountant; Jon Bischetsrieder, Purchasing Agent; Shiran Simmons, Information Technology Analyst; Sue Lynch, Clerk Typist; and Greg Friz, Vice President of Valuation Resource Management, Inc. Mr. Friz stated he prepared and proposed the RFP. Barbara Boswell gave the staff presentation (see copy attached). Mr. Friz gave the presentation for Valuation Resource Management, Inc. Mr. Friz stated his company was a Fixed Asset Appraiser, who has accountability, insurance placement, and enterprise accounting. Mr. Friz mentioned that he had first contacted the City in October 1996. At that time he told City staff he could do the job for between $6,000 to $10,000. He also visited several of the sites and provided information to assist the City with preparing the RFP. Mr. Friz stated he received the RFP in May 1997, an Addendum to the RFP in June 1997, and that the RFP was due June 19, 1997. He interviewed with the City on August 12, 1997, andhe attended the City Council meeting on September 9, 1997. Mr. Friz stated Valuation Resource Management, Inc. was a national appraisal company which has served over 1,000 clients in the last two years. Their staff handles 75 California cities with external audits, tagging, and property control. They take pride in their quality service. They had identified Jeff Anderson to be our project manager. Jeff has a finance manager background, is a college graduate, and a resident of Santa Clarita. Jeff has worked with Pasadena, Monterey, and various other cities. Mr. Friz continued stating Valuation Resource Management, Inc. offers bar code technology and a bar code reader. They did not offer to interface to a Pentarnation program. They program the bar code reader only, then match it to Pentarnation. Pentamation would then print an exception report. He didn't think they should have to develop something to work with Pentarnation software. Their equipment scans existing assets that are already in a data base. The data could be compared to a Pentamation Report, and an exception report could be generated. Mr. Friz stated he felt the Valuation Resource Management, Inc. bid was well written. He wasn't sure about'the other two companies but stated Valuation Resource Management, Inc. specialized in government entities. They have a great reputation, and their staff has college degrees. They are also in uniform compliance with USPA, and they meet with the auditors to make sure auditors are happy. Mr. Friz continued stating Valuation Resource Management, Inc. would meet with the various departments within the City prior to writing the Property Control manual. He said the manual would be a good tool. Attachn-cent A Fixed Asset Vendor Hearing Page 2 Mr. Friz provided handouts (see copy attached) and stated his base price was $5,400 for the City of Santa Clarita. It was $30,000 for Pasadena, which is a much larger city. Mr. Friz said that other companies could provide the service but the company we chose didn't have an office in Southern California, and they didn't have employees who were residents of the City. Mr. Friz closed his presentation stating that he didn't think it was a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars to pay for a service that would not be superior. Ken asked Steve and Shiran to introduce themselves since they had recently joined the meeting. Ken asked Barbara if the panel came up with the scores after the five firms had been interviewed and references checked. Were the scores averaged? Barbara replied, no. All five proposals had been evaluated and references checked, but only the top three were interviewed. Ken asked if one panel member's score could provide 90 percent of the rating while another panel member's score provided just 1 percent. Barbara stated it was split up. April Jordan interjected that two panel members evaluated all five proposals, and one person evaluated the technical portion of all five proposals. The scores were averaged. One person checked references, and the top three scores were selected for interviews. Ken clarified that five panel members did individual ranking of the top three proposers. Ken asked if it was typical City procedure to make a recommendation based on fees. Barbara responded, stating it was not procedure with professional contracts, but that is was with goods and services. Ken asked if it was legal to base recommendation on fees. Jon Bischetsrieder answered, stating under strict interpretation of professional services, use of price exclusively is prohibited. Ken asked Barbara if it was standard to consider whether vendors were residents. Barbara replied that it was not standard and that it was not a factor in the panel's decision. Ken asked why a firm that was three to four times more expensive was recommended. Barbara stated that all candidates were evaluated and ranked based on the proposal, interview, and references and that the most qualified firm was selected. She also stated that the panel felt it was very important to have procedures that were followed. Asset Valuation Services had procedures, and their references stated that they followed up with their clients to make sure they were using the procedures. Technology was another factor. Asset Valuation Services indicated that they could interface with Pentamation. Valuation Resource Management, Inc. was not sure if their clients were following procedures, and they did not offer the same level of technology. The selection was made based on the panel members' scores. Ken asked what the City Staff would like to see come of this hearing. Barbara stated that she still believed in the original recommendation. Ken asked Mr. Friz if he was ever promised the job. Mr. Friz replied, no. He said he was originally contacted by the City in October 1996, and that he often assisted cities with preparing RFP's. Attachnient A (Cont'd) Fixed Asset Vendor Hearing Page 3 Ken asked Mr. Friz if he thought we used a fair process. Mr. Friz responded, yes. Ken said that the City had five people from different departments rank the competing vendors which was a typical process. Why should we do something different? Mr. Friz replied he didn't understand the ranking process and how it was implemented. He was disappointed that they were perceived as not providing a quality service. Ken clarified that it was not that the City felt they weren't qualified but that they were not the most qualified. Mr, Friz restated that he has a staff member that is a resident of Santa Clarita and that the City didn't need to pay more for this service. He didn't know how anyone could alter Pentarnation software. Mr. Friz stated he didn't have a problem with the process, but that he put in a competitive bid and he thought we should go with the most responsible low fee. Ken asked Mr. Friz what he wanted to see come from this hearing. Did he want to compete in future bids, did he want the City staff to make a different decision? Mr. Friz stated he wanted an opportunity to communicate that his company provides a quality service at a reasonable price. He said that he respects the City's decision to choose, but that they aren't making the right decision. He also stated that the City did not need to go out of state and spend more money for the Fixed Asset service. Ken asked if there was anything else. Barbara replied, no. Mr. Friz asked that if all references checked out, how can the other company be the most qualified? Ken asked Barbara to answer. Barbara stated that all proposers were in the Fixed Asset business. In order to determine which company would best meet the City's needs,.the panel had to determine what questions to ask in the interview process. The panel selected the questions and looked closely at how the questions were answered. Additionally, the panel reviewed how the RFP`s were written. Technology and procedures were important factors since the City doesn't currently have procedures. . Asset Valuation Services had procedures and followed up with their clients to make sure the procedures were being used. The references also said the procedures were easy to follow. Valuation Resource Management, Inc. did not get this type of feedback. Barbara continued stating awarding a professional contract is different from purchasing ten chairs. That it is not something you can see and touch. Ken asked if there was anything else. No one responded. Ken asked for the date staff was to return to Council. No date had been given. Ken said he would write his decision and distribute within a week. Ken thanked everyone for attending. hA924venhTg.8t Attachnient A (Cont'd) Attachments FIXED ASSET VALUATION AWARD HEARING September 24, 1997 2:00pm In May, 1997 the City solicited proposals for Fixed Asset Valuation and Inventory services to include furniture, equipment, buildings and land. In addition, it also included providing bar code tags, bar code scanner and procedures manual to assist the City in maintaining its inventory once this service was complete. The inventory, once complete, is to be provided in a format that can be imported into the City's financial system. The bar code scanner was to include the necessary software with the ability to interface with the City's fixed asset database. The RFP process that was followed was consistent with the City's Purchasing Policy. A notice was published in the newspaper, and 15 RFP's were sent out to potential firms. Of these 15, 5 proposals were returned to the City. The proposals ranged in price from a high of $30,741 to a low of $8,650. This wide range of price can be attributed partially to the unknown factors that the vendors were faced with in writing their proposals. They were provided with only basic information on the facilities to be includeZ in the service. Square footage was provided on only the City Hall building. They were also provided only a partial listing of our current fixed assets database, and so were not fully aware of the total scope of the field work that would be required. Specific criteria were set for rating the written proposals. These criteria were established prior to the proposals being returned. These criteria were divided into four categories, Required Services, Optional Services, contents of Proposal, and Price. Required Services was weighted at 90%, Optional Services 1.5%, Contents of Proposal 3.5% and Price 5%. 3 staff members were involved in evaluation of the written proposals, representing purchasing, technology services and finance. Each of the three persons evaluated all 5 proposals in their specific areas. Their scores were then accumulated on a master evaluation sheet, to determine the overall ranking of the firms for the written evaluation. In addition, references were checked on the proposers. Again, a preset list of questions were asked of each of the prior clients. 6 cities were contacted for reference checks of Valuation Resource Management resulted in some comments by former clients such as: Overall their clients were satisfied with their service; Sometimes took long periods of time to return data; Did not provide a draft of the final report, although now they understand that they do; One city did not buy thier software, although now wish they had; and that VRM was inexpensive. 5 Cities and I transit authority were contacted for reference check of Asset Valuation Services resulted in comments such as: They were thorough-, had knowledge of and concern with audit Att-achrrient A ( Cont'd) standards; that assets purchased with Federal funds were tracked seperately; and it was easy to maintain their fixed assets program. Following the review of the written proposals, American Appraisal Associates was ranked number I with a score of 7.55, Asset valuation Services 2nd with a score of 7.00 and Valuation Resource Management 3rd with a score of 6.03. These three firms were then invited for an interview. The interview panel consisted of 5 staff members, representing purchasing, technology services, risk management and finance. Specific questions were selected to ask of all three proposers. These questions covered areas such as why the City should select their firm, the challenges they foresaw in taking on our project and were given an opportunity to add any additional comments they wanted us to consider in making our selection. The panel also asked key questions in areas that staff was particulary interested in. -. One question related to the technical support provided by the firm after the project was complete. Valuation Resource Management indicated that yes they did offer technical support at no additional charge. They also indicated that we would need software to interface -with our financial system, and that we should contact Pentarnation, our accounting software company to determine if they had already found a bar scan reader that interfaced with our fixed assets module. This was an area that was to be included as part of the proposal. Asset Valuation Services included this in their proposal, so we did not have to contact our accounting software vendor to determine if Pentarnation already.had found a bar code reader software that could be interfaced. Another question that was asked related to the procedures manual that was requested in the RFP. Staff feels that this is an important element in the RFP as this will help us to establish a process to maintain an accurate inventory once the intial valuation is complete. We asked all vendors whether They had written procedures manuals for past clients detailing recommendations for shipping and receiving, tagging, movement of property from one location to another deletions, etc. We felt this question was key as it would show whether the procedures set up by the, consultant were practical to be followed. All three vendors indicated that they had written these types of manuals for prior clients. Asset Valuation Services indicated that yes, their clients were using their manuals. They knew this because they had followed up with their clients to find out if the procedures were being followed. Valuation Resource Management indicated that they did not know if their procedures manual were being used. As a Result of the interview section of the rfp process, Asset Valuation Services was ranked no Attachnmt A ( Cont'd) 1, Valuation Resource Management no 2, and American Appraisal Associates 3. While Asset Valuation Services was not the least expensive, it also was not the most expensive, ranked third out of the 5 in price. Staff felt that knowing Asset Valuation Services would provide scanner software to interface with our existing financial software, a procedures manual that is currently being used by previous clients, and their overall response to our RFP, that they were the most qualified firm to do thejob and so recommended to City Council that the contract be awarded to them. Staff feels we followed an open, competitive process. Five individuals representing various backgrounds and interests were involved in the process. We followed all state and local procedures, therefore, we think the process identified the most qualified firm to provide this service. This concludes staff s presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Attachment A ( Cont'd) ,`�. Presented to: THE CITY OF�SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencikllonlevard, Suite 300 Santa Clari6,�C-alifornia,,91355 A V FW4 Liati ' o'n Resource Mana�ement, Inc. Gr6gory N. Friz, Vice Pres ident 9383 Wilshire Blvd., SuiW840 Beverly Hills, California 902'11 1.800.428.1925 or 213.658.57 213.658.5023 (facsimile) gfriz@valrm.com (L -mail) September 24, 1997 Attwlvfient A ( Cmt'd) Clients Served by Jeffrey M. Anderson A Resident of Santa Clarita city orPasadena Pasadena, California Ms. Paula Hanson, Principal Accountant 626.744.4336 City of Compton Compton, California Ms. Marilyn Home, Deputy City Controller 310.605.5576 City of Monterey Monterey, California Ms. Mary Sue Baker 408.6463948 City of Petaluma Petaluma, California Mr. Mike Acorn 707.778.4341 College of the Canyons Santa Clarita, California Mr. Gary Olmstead 805.259.7800 City of Millbrae Millbrae, California Ms. Christine Ma, Financial Services Supervisor 415.259.2358 City of Palm Springs Palm Springs, California Ms. Nancy McIntosh 619.323.8218 City of Pleasanton Pleasanton, California Mr. Mike Patrick 510.484.8030 At-tachra-ant A ( Ocnt'd) �V , "M R JEFFREY M. ANDERSON SENIOR APPRAISER Valuation Resource Managemen4 Inc. PROFESSIONAL PROFILE Mr. Anderson is an senior appraiser with Valuation Resource Management, Inc. (VRM). He is fully versed in the fields of machinery/technical asset inventory and valuation, fixed asset accounting, insurance valuation and construction. He is also a candidate for advancement within the American Society of Appraisers. Before joining VRM in 1993, he worked in the investmearinsurance industry as a Registered Representative of a Wall Street based investment firm. Mr. Anderson is responsible for project management, client consultation, staff supervision, field data collection, production, review and quality assurance of valuation services provided to clients. He applies his technical appraisal expertise to the valuation of fixed assets for a variety of purposes, including the establishment of insurable values, substantiation of proof of loss and development of property records systems. Mr. Anderson has served clients throughout the United. States, frequently acting as project manager on complex property valuations and planning assignments. Some of his clients include manufacturing, utilities, medical, office and retail facilities. He has participated in many projects of varying scope and complexity including the valuation of all types of machinery and equipment, building construction (including architecturally orriate historical structures), and building service systems. The results of the appraisal investigations are used by clients to assist in the planning and budgeting process and as a basis for projecting capital asset improvements/replacement. EDUCATION: University of Wisconsin - Madison, WI B.B.A. - Investment, Banking and Finance PROFESSIONAL AFFMIATION: American Society of Appraisers (ASA), Candidate Member Attadunent A ( Cmt1d) VALUATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC. CALIFORNIA CLIENTS SERVED UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Cities Served: Cities Served - Arroyo Grande Palm Springs Avalon Paramount Avenal Pasadena Azusa Petaluma Baldwin Park Pico Rivera Beaumont Pinole Bell Gardens Pismo Beach Bellflower Pleasanton Belvedcre Pomona Blythe Rancho Palos Buellton Riverside Burbank Riverton Colton San Diego Commerce San Jacinto Compton San Pablo Culver City Santa Clara Del Mar Santa Monica El Cerrito Santa Rosa FiIlmorc Sausalito Grover Beach Seal Beach Holbrook Taft Hollister Tiburon Huntington Beach Tracy Indian.Wells Ukiah Inglewood Vacaville Irvine Vcrnon King City West Covina Urkspur West Hollywood Livermore West Sacramento Lynwood Westminster Millbrae Mill Valley hCssion.Viejo TownshipslKillages Served., Monterey Corte Madera Moreno Valley Fairfax Murrieta San AnseIemo Novato Tiburun Orinda AttadMent A ( Cont ' d) �M' I City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259-2489 Santa Clarita Fax California 91355-2196 (805) 259-8125 October 3, 1997 Greg Friz, Vice President Valuation Resource Management, Inc, 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 840 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Barbara Boswell Accounting Manager City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Bl. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Friz and Ms. Boswell, I I '?"LA Attached is the Hearing Officer Opinion from the Administrative Hearing held September 24, 1997 on the Fixed Assets Valuation Contract Award. Through the Administrative Hearing several findings were made. Among these were, the contract award process was fair; there was never a commitment to Valuation Resource Management, Inc.; the City is prohibited from awarding a contract based solely on price; and, it is not City policy to consider residence of consultant employees when awarding contracts. As a result of the hearing, the two desired outcomes expressed by both parties were achieved. First, Mr. Friz had the opportunity to communicate the value and quality of the service. his company provided, and secondly, staff will be directed to return to City Council with the recommendation to award the contract to Asset Valuation Services on October 15, 1997. Thank you for your participation in this process. If you have any further questiQns, please feel free to call me at (805) 255-4901. S' ely, camp Ken Pulskamp Hearing Officer Att-achrrk-mt B PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SANTA CLARITA HEARING OFFICER OPINION FIXED ASSET VALUATION HEARING SEPTEMBER 24,1997 Staff Presentation • Barbara Boswell gave the staff presentation. • In May 1997, the City solicited proposals for Fixed Asset Valuation and Inventory service. • The service needed to include: Bar code tags, a bar code scanner that would interface with the City's database, a procedures manual, and the ability to import the completed inventory format into the City's financial system. • The RFP process used was consistent with the City's Purchasing Policy. 15 RFP's were sent out, 5 proposals were returned to the City, ranging in price from $8,650 to $30,741. • Proposers only had the square footage and a partial listing of the current fixed assets database, which in part explains the wide range in pricing. • The four categories of specific criteria used to rate the proposals were: Required Services, 90%; Optional Services,.1.6%; Contents of Proposal, 3.6%; and Price, 5%. • Three staff members evaluated all five proposals in specific areas. • Following the review of the written proposals, American Appraisal Associates (AAA), ranked number one, Asset Valuation Services (AVS) number two, and Valuation Resource Management, Inc. (VRMI) number three. These three firms were invited for interviews. • The interview panel consisted of five staff members. Vendors were asked if they provide technical support after the project is complete. VRMI responded that they offered technical support. They indicated the City would need software to interface with its financial system and that the City should contact Pentamation to determine if they had found a bar scan reader that interfaced with the City's fixed assets module. (This was an area that was to have been included as part of the proposal.) The AVS proposal included this information so that the City did not have to investigate. The vendors were asked if they had written procedure manuals. All three vendors indicated they had manuals. AVS also added that they knew their clients were using the manuals because they follow up with them. VRMI did not know if their procedure manuals were being used. Results of the interview ranked AVS number one, VRMI number two, and AAA number three, Staff determined that Asset Valuation Services was the most qualified firm to do thejob. Staff felt they followed an open, competitive process. State and local procedure's were followed. Attachnmt C Fixed Asset Valuation Hearing Opinion Page 2 Vendor Testimony Greg Friz represented Valuation Resource Management, Inc. Valuation Resource Management, Inc. is a Fixed Asset Appraiser, who has accountability, insurance placement and enterprise accounting. Mr. Friz first contacted the City in October 1996. Ile quoted the job at $6,000 to $10,000. He visited several sites and assisted the City with their preparation of the RFP. • Mr. Friz received the RFP in May 1997, and an Addendum to the RFP in June 1997. The RFP was due June 19, 1997. Mr. Friz interviewed with the City on August 12, 1997. He attended the City Council meeting on September 9, 1997, where he spoke about his concerns. • Valuation Resource Management, Inc. is a national appraisal company; They have served over 1,000 clients in the last two years. They handle 75 California cities with external audits, tagging, and property control. They specialize in governmental agencies. • Valuation Resource Management, Inc. takes pride in their quality service. • Valuation Resource Management, Inc. had identified an individual to be the project manager for the City. This individual has a finance manager background, is a college graduate, and a resident of Santa Clarita. • Valuation Resource Management, Inc. offers bar code technology and a bar code reader. They did not offer to interface to Pentamation nor do they think they should have to develop something to work with Pentamation. They program the bar code reader and then match it to Pentarnation. Pentarnation should print an exception report. Mr. Friz indicated Pentarnation is a proprietary software and no one can change their program. He and his company believe that no other company can develop software for Pentamation. • Valuation Resource Management, Inc. felt their bid was well written. They specialize in government entities. They have a great reputation. Their staff has college degrees. They are in compliance with USPA. They are willing to meet with auditors to make sure they are happy. Valuation Resource Management, Inc. would meet with the various departments in the City prior to writing the Property Control Manual. Valuation Resource Management, Inc.'s base price for the City was $5,400. It was $30,000 forPasadena. Other companies could do the job but we had selected a company that did not have an office in Southern California, and they did not have any employees who were residents of Santa Clarita. Valuation Resource Management, Inc. does not think it is a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars to pay for a service that would not be superior to theirs. Attachment C ( Cont'd) Fixed Asset Valuation Hearing Opinion Page 3 Qup�tion & Answer • Had the panel come up with the scores after all five firms had been interviewed and references checked? Were the scores averaged? No, all five proposals were evaluated, and references checked, but only the top three were interviewed. • Did one panel member's score provide 90 percent of the rating while another panel member's score provide just I percent? No, two panel members evaluated all five proposals, and one panel member evaluated the technical portion of all five proposals. These scores were averaged. One panel member checked references, and the top three scores were selected for interviews. Therefore, five panel members did individual ranking of the top three proposers. • Is it typical City procedure to make recommendations based on fees? It is not procedure with professional contracts, but it is typical procedure for goods and services. • Is it legal to base recommendation on fees? Under the strict interpretation of professional services, use of price exclusively is prohibited. • Is it standard to consider whether vendors are residents? It is not standard, and it was not a factor in the panel's decision. • Why was a firm that was three to four times more expensive recommended? All candidates were evaluated and ranked based on their proposal, interview, and references. -The most qualified firm was selected. The panel felt it was very important to have procedures that were followed. Asset Valuation Services had procedures and their references stated they followed up with their clients to make sure the procedures were being followed. Technology was another factor. Asset Valuation Services indicated they could interface with Pentarnation. Valuation Resource Management, Inc. did not offer the same level of technology, and they were not sure if their clients were following procedures. • What did the City staff want to see come of this hearine. The City staff believed in the original recommendation. • What did Valuation Resource Management, Inc. want to see come of this hearing? Did they want to compete in future bids,- did they want the City staff to make a different decision? They wanted an opportunity to communicate that they provide a quality service at a reasonable price. • Was Valuation Resource Management, Inc. ever promised the Fixed Asset job. No. • Did Valuation Resource Management, Inc. think the City -used a fair process? Yes. • The City used a typical process to rank the competing vendors. Why should thq do it differently? Valuation Resource Management, Inc. did not understand the ranking process or how. it was implemented. They were disappointed that they were not perceived as providing quality service. They didn't know how anyone could alter Pentamation software. They did not have a problem with the process, but thought the City should go with the most responsible low fee. • How could the other company be the most qualified if all of Valuation Resource Management, Inc. references had checked out? All proposers were in the Fixed Asset business. The panel selected questions and -looked at how the questions were answered. They reviewed how the RFP's were written. Technology and procedures were important factors in the panel's decision. Asset Valuation Services received better feedback in these areas then Valuation Resource Management, Inc. Staff was looking for the best fit for the City's needs. Attaclumnt C ( Cont'd) Fixed Asset Valuation Hearing Opinion Page 4 Findinas • The process was fair, • There was never a commitment to Valuation Resources Management, Inc. • Mr rriz was unclear on ranking; however, this was discussed. • Mr. Friz was concerned about communicating the value and quality of the services his company offered. • The City is prohibited from making a decision solely based on price. • It is not City policy to consider employee residence when awarding consulting contracts. Conclusion • Both parties were given an opportunity to present their case and state what outcome they were seeking. • The vendor wanted an opportunity to communicate the value and quality of service his company provided, • The staff wanted to move forward with the original recommendation to Council to hire Asset Valuation Services. • The Hearing Officer granted both parties what they were seeking. hA924opin.al Attachrrent C ( Ccnt 'd)