AGENDA MEMORANDUM

Meeting Date: November 10, 2008

From:                          Mike Thornton, Purchasing Inventory

Subject:                      Resolutions authorizing continuing services agreements with the three firms listed to provide professional planning services on an as needed basis

Staff Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the resolutions authorizing execution of a continuing services agreement with LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Miller-Legg, and Renaissance Planning Group.

Analysis:

The purpose of this solicitation is to establish a continuing services agreement with no more than three qualified firms to provide professional planning services as provided by FS 287.055, the Consultant’s Competitive Negotiations Act (CCNA).  

The scope of professional planning services includes but, is not limited to:

• Review and revision of the Land Development Code
• Development of city specific appropriate design standards
• Development of Community Involvement programs and campaigns
• Multimodal Transportation Planning
• Beautification Standards & Design
• Historic Preservation Districts
• Design Standards
• Architectural Standards
• Review Processes
• Community Redevelopment Areas
• Review of Building Department processes and procedures

For future projects, the City will negotiate the technical aspects of the scope of work, deliverables, schedule and fee on a project-by-project basis.   Tasks will be estimated and billed at hourly rates in accordance with the professional’s fee schedule.

The Purchasing Division issued Request for Qualifications (RFQ) number 80123 inviting interested and qualified firms to submit Qualifications Statements which demonstrated the professional qualifications and competence of their organization.

The City received qualification statements from 18 firms.  An evaluation committee consisting of staff from the City Managers’ Office, Planning, and Public Works familiar with planning matters evaluated the responses detailing their organization’s qualifications and competence.  Fundamental source selection principles stress the need to strictly adhere to the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFQ.  The proposals were evaluated by the committee in a fair, uniform, and objective manner solely in accordance with the evaluation criteria.

The result of those evaluations is detailed in the ranking list included here.

SUMMARY OF RANKING

Firm Name	Overall Ranking
LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Inc.	1
Miller – Legg	2
Renaissance Planning Group	3
Wilson – Miller	4
Glatting, Jackson, Kercher, Anglica	5
Martin & Vargas Design	6
Land Design Innovations	7
IBI Group	8
Strategic Planning Group	9
B & H Consultants, Inc.	10
Canin Associates	11
Green Consulting Group	12
TMH Consulting, Inc.	13
Ivey Planning Group	14
Booth, Ern, Straughan & Hiott (BESH)	15
Houston Guozzo Group	16
GDS Planning Consultants	17
Delisi Fitzgerald, Inc.	18

For each firm evaluated, raw point scores assigned by each member were totaled and converted to a ranking.  The rankings for each firm were totaled and then converted to an overall ordinal score.  Using this method has proven to minimize the effects of large variances in any one evaluators’ scoring.

Three firms were selected as each does have expertise in an area where one of the others may not. For example one may specialize in process review and analysis while another may specialize in planning for airports.  Staff selected three firms in order to meet any possible planning related services required by the City.

Options:

1.         Approve execution of the agreements with the top three firms as listed; or

2.         Such alternative action as the Commission may deem appropriate.

Fiscal Impact:

The actual fiscal impact is unknown at this time.    Actual expenditures will depend on hours billed for fee based services.  Projects will be estimated and detailed in separate  task orders.  The cost of the project based work will be charged to the specific project.  As future projects are identified commission approval will be sought when the project cost warrants such approval.  

Submission Date and Time:    11/6/2008 5:07 PM____

Department: _City Manager____________ Prepared by:  _Mike Thornton__________                      Attachments:         Yes_X__   No ______ Advertised: Yes___Not Required ______ Dates:   __________________________                      Attorney Review :       Yes___  No ____ _________________________________            Revised 6/10/04

Reviewed by: Dept. Head ________ Finance  Dept. ___________JB_____                                    Deputy C.M. _________EFS_______                                          Submitted by: City Manager ___________________

Account No. _NA______________ Project No. __NA______________ WF No. _____NA______________ Budget  _____NA_______________ Available ____NA_______________