Meeting Date:           November 24, 2008


From:                          Mike Thornton, Purchasing Manager


Subject:                      Resolutions authorizing execution of continuing services agreements with Southeastern Surveying and Mapping Corporation and Dyer, Riddle, Mills and Precourt, Inc. for future professional surveying services



Staff Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing execution of a continuing services agreement with Southeastern Surveying and Mapping Corporation (SSMC) and Dyer, Riddle, Mills and Precourt, Inc. (DRMP).



The purpose of this solicitation is to establish a continuing services agreement with two qualified firms to provide professional surveying services as provided by FS 287.055, the Consultant’s Competitive Negotiations Act (CCNA).


The scope of professional services includes all services related to surveying and utility mapping services.  Until recently, the City was an authorized user of the Lake County surveying contract.  That contract has expired and our use of the new county contract was denied by the Lake County Attorney.  Their attorney’s opinion is piggybacking a contract obtained in accordance with the State of Florida CCNA requirements was not permitted.


The scope of services includes, but is not limited to performance of all survey tasks related to (1) right of ways, (2) roadways, (3)topographical, (4) boundaries, (5) special purpose, (6) maintenance maps, (7) legal descriptions, (8) buildings, (9) section breakdowns, (10) plat reviews and certifications, and (10) other tasks which generally fall within this discipline. 


All work will be in accordance with the Florida Administrative Code 61G176.002 (8) and Technical Standards for surveying in the State of Florida, as set forth in Chapter 472, Florida Administrative Code.  For future projects, the City will negotiate the technical aspects of the scope of work, deliverables, schedule and fees, on a project-by-project basis.   Tasks will be estimated and billed at hourly rates in accordance with the professional’s fee schedule.


In an effort to reduce operating expenses, the City has chosen to not fill or budget for the vacant positions of Registered Land Surveyor and Survey Technician.  These positions would normally be able to perform small scale surveys for City property and projects, as well as review and certify plats.  The slowdown in the construction industry, and the reduction in City construction, makes it more cost effective to contract for surveying services needed by the City.  The decreased work load does not warrant retaining city staff to perform these services.


On September 3, 2008, the Purchasing Division issued Request for Proposal (RFP) number 80452 inviting interested and qualified firms to submit Technical Proposals/Qualifications Statements which demonstrated the professional qualifications and competence of their organization by responding to specific evaluation criteria published in the RFP, by which their proposals would be judged against to determine which would be best to serve the needs of the City. 


On September 24, 2008, the City received qualification statements from eight surveying firms.  An evaluation committee consisting of staff from the Public Works, Environmental Services, Human Resources, and Purchasing which were familiar with engineering, management, and acquisition matters evaluated the responses which should have detailed their organization’s qualifications, specialized experience, and technical competence in relation to the four evaluation elements of the RFP.


The State of Florida adopted the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) more than 30 years ago.  This law has served as ‘the standard’ as other states have studied and enacted other qualifications-based procurement laws for professional services.  The purpose of the act was to require government agencies including municipalities to:


·         Provide public notice of all projects;

·         Select the most qualified firm for a particular project through consideration of a firm’s qualifications without consideration of fees; and

·         Negotiate fair and reasonable fees with the selected firm(s).


This solicitation was conducted in compliance with the CCNA, Florida Statute 287.055 governing the “Acquisition of professional architectural, engineering, landscape architectural or surveying and mapping services,” which contains policy and procedural requirements to be followed when soliciting, evaluating and selecting contractors to perform professional services.  The CCNA requires the evaluation of current statements of qualifications and performance data, together with those that may be submitted by other firms regarding the proposed project demonstrating their qualifications, approach to the project, and ability to furnish the required services.


To comply with the CCNA, the solicitation included established evaluation criterion elements successfully used to conduct similar CCNA type procurements previously.  The criterion, based on the scope of work, with their relative importance emphasized by maximum obtainable point values were:

·         Overall impression of experience and capabilities - 30 points. 

·         Experience of key personnel - 30 points

·         Experience Surveying for Municipalities - 25

·         Project management experience - 15 points


In the tradition of fundamental source selection principles which stress the need to adhere strictly to the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP and following the evaluation and scoring methodology in the source selection/technical evaluation plan, the proposals were evaluated by the committee in a fair, uniform, and objective manner solely in accordance with the CCNA and evaluation criteria.

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




Surveying Firm                                                           Rank

Southeastern Surveying and Mapping Corporation


Dyer, Riddle, Mills, Precourt, Inc.


CPH Engineering


Booth, Ern, Straughan, Hiott (BESH)


Springstead Engineering, Inc.


Leading Edge Land Services


Consul-Tech Surveying & Mapping Corporation


Street Smarts



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. 


During a consensus meeting the evaluators noted and discussed the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies; and the disparity of scores where several firms did not achieve at least 80 percent of the available points.  In this regard, the cause is mainly attributed to the lack of relevant information regarding competence and qualifications which the firms did not include in their responses. 


The Special Conditions in solicitation 80452 did not contain any restrictions.  The scope of services was clear and considered easy to follow.  The response submission instructions were clear and standardized forms (SF-330 Architect - Engineer Qualifications) were included as tools for the offerors to use in developing their responses and eliciting relevant information which would permit the evaluators to make well-informed, sound judgments about competence and qualifications in terms of the evaluation criteria.  The instructions advised that failure to provide all the information may result in rejection or reduction of evaluation points and indicated how the response was to be formatted and where to place the information.  Also, the Method of Evaluation (evaluation criteria) clearly established the important elements of emphasis and relative value the evaluators would be considering.


Unfortunately, in a number of other submissions responding to 80342, “Approaches” were described in generalities and without many details.  Where the solicitation invited up to ten (10) pages of narrative and five (5) pages of sketches to describe a firm’s approach to working with a City and its personnel on engineering challenges, some responses contained a weak general narrative.  Some evaluators did know of the firms but, due to the lack of detail responding to the criteria the firms did not score many points in some evaluation areas.  In a number of other cases, again too many important details were omitted. 



1.         Approve execution of the agreements with the number 1 and number 2 ranked firms; or

2.         Not approve the selected firms and cancel the solicitation; whereby the City would not have a firm to perform surveying services.


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:    11/20/2008 11:12 AM____


Department:  Public Works____________

Prepared by: Mike Thornton__________                     

Attachments: Yes ___X___   No   ______

Advertised:    Yes____________________                     

Dates:             August 31, 2008__________                                

Attorney Review :       Yes___  No __X__



Revised 6/10/04


Reviewed by: Dept. Head ________


Finance  Dept. __________JB______                                     


Deputy C.M. _______EFS_________                                                                         

Submitted by:

City Manager ___________________


Account No. N/A_________________


Project No.   N/A_________________


WF No.          N/A_________________


Budget           N/A_________________


Available       N/A__________________