The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/10/2011TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Please Note: OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Honorable Mayor and City Council Alan Tandy, City Manager �.� General Information City Hall will be closed tomorrow, November 1 1 tn in observance of Veteran's Day. Noverr * •,•#* . �,***** ***, ;'*:******* — � }'*'f+t*'F * *'F*'F � 't �F .4 If you are viewing the document online, yov can click the blve underlined words throuc which will take you directly to the backgrovnd files referenced for each applicable topic. Miscellaneous News • Mayor Hall cut the ribbon on 70 new units of very high-quality hc South Mill Creek today. The project is beautifully designed and is occupied! Some photos of the facility are enclosed. • At the Council meeting of October 19, 201 1, Councilmembers J Hanson requested that staff look into different issues surrounding I� preference. Both the City Attorney and the Financial Services provided memos addressing the subject, and they are enclosed. • Good news! A recent analysis of park development fee balances sh should be able to construct most or all of Phase II of the Sports Village expected. The plan is to build the additional fields, but utilize at least them for youth football temporarily. Once the originally planned f< are built in a future phase of the complex, the temporary fields in Ph ��v��i�ri�� +� r�ivi i�iv+i�v� r��r �i��r v��r +�� /1Y1/VIYI/VI ��riivv� i�w�� r� Honorable Mayor and City Counci General Information November 10, 201 1 Page 2 Redevelopment News ■ Today, the California Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments Redevelopment Association, et al (including the LeagueJ v. Mato. lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the State's plan t redevelopment agencies unless they agree to pay $1.7 billion for FY $400 million in subsequent budget years. The initial petition, filed on July 18th by the California Redevelopmen� (CRA), the League, and the cities of San Jose and Union City, arguE 26 and AB 1 x 27 violate the California State Constitution, including Pr Prop. 22 was passed by 61 percent of California voters in Noveml prevent State raids on local governments, including redevelopment c I will keep you informed as more detail becomes available. It's too sc Event Schedule There are multiple public events scheduled for the next week at City facilitie � Monty Python's Spamalot November 1 bth; 7:30 p.m. Rabobank Theater - Tickets: $26.50 - $54 � Winter Jam 201 1 November 17th; 7 p.m. Rabobank Arena - Tickets: $10 at the door � Hot Fest 201 1 November 18th; 7:30 p.m. Rabobank Arena - Tickets: $20 - $50 Council Referrals • Councilmember Salas: o Tow Truck Rates • Councilmember Johnson: City Place Apartments �� _ � � �' .�: � .� � �.�, �F . �� ; r � � i � Ille .... � � � � ��, i � . � , �:1�� ' 1' �111 �� -�, _-�►�� _:�„{ _ ��: � � _ �. ��., � � L_ � ��,� , �.. _.�.� ` ��p i, ..-_-_•A��nai� .i, 11 �� 1 �1.. Y .. �� `� 7� i ..-..�_-�� 1�� `� ��■ _� �% �f � � L `� � ; ti Yi ' 1 . �1 I -.� � �► , - V _ , —J �. �_r �,l�i`�.,'��= . � a -.� ,,4 r` . 3 �� t9 �`;1 .", � f � ?' • `�,,a� f � ��>� '+`S•. ; .i � ,� �.� .:��!� � _. ' -'� � - �. � .t ; I ., �' `� 1�;; ° � 1 � 4C i { `-.. r y� � , .. �,R �� '�,;.:: ! � �� -� � / � � � �� 1'� �� . ( tl 1 R� ..� �� -�r �� _ -� �� '� d a ✓�`�v``� _,s. � TO: FROM: SU BJ ECT: MEMORANDUM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE November 9, 201 1 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL JOSHUA H. RUDNICK, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY VEHICLE PREFERENCE ANALYSIS COUNCIL REFERRAL NO. 274 Dual referral to the City Attorney and Financial Services 1) Councilmember Johnson requested that staff investigate how Kern ( operates and legally justifies a 5�o vehicle preference for local bidders, an back a report. 2) Councilmember Hanson requested that staff prepare a comparison total number of dollars spent on purchases put out to bid for each yec what 3�o and 5� would mean to the process. � 1. KERN COUNTY'S LOCAL VENDOR PREFERENCE POLICY: The County of Kern has a Local Vendor Preference policy which a competitive bids for equipment, materials supplies and contractual servic the contractual services are procured using a bid solicitation process basE price. (See attached County policy as Exhibit 1) It should be noted that: The County's local vendor preference does not apply works/construction projects, which must be awarded to the lowest resp responsible bidder to specification in accordance with the California Publ Code. The County defines a"Local Vendor" as any business which: A. Has had a fixed office or distribution point located in and ha� ��l�1rP�� within thP �ni �ntv fnr �t IP��t �ix mnnth� immP�li�tPlv HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL November 9, 201 1 Page 2 C. Will credit all sales taxes generated pursuant to the contract < a result of the application of this local vendor preference to location in Kern County. The following is how the County's local vendor preference works: If the low bidder is not a local vendor, any local vendor that subn that is within five percent of the low bid shall have the option of submittin� within 48 hours (not including weekends and holidays) of the time indicatE documents of the bid opening. Such new bids must be in an amount I equal to the low bid announced by the Purchasing Agent. If the Purchasing Agent receives any new bids from local vendors w� option of submitting new bids within said forty-eight (48) hour period, the Agent shall award the contract to the local vendor submitting the lowe new bids are received, the contract shall be awarded to the original lo� announced by the Purchasing Agent. If more than one new bid is rec local vendors, and there is a tie for the low bid, the contract shall be awa ocal vendor whose original bid was the lowest. 2. LEGAL BASIS FOR KERN COUNTY'S LOCAL VENDOR PREFERENCE POI Cities and Counties must, by ordinance, adopt policies and K including bidding regulations, governing purchases of supplies and equipr City. Such purchases must be in accordance with such adopted poli accordance with all relevant provisions of law. No policy, procedure oi may be adopted which is inconsistent or in conflict with statute. It appears that Kern County's local vendor policy is supported by � Attorney General opinion that held that a general law county that purchasing agent, may in accordance with Government Code section subject to any provisions of law governing the purchase of particular gooc adopt a procedure which provides to vendors within the county a fi� preference. (72 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 86) 3. CONCLUSION: Although the Kern County's five percent local vendor prefere appears to be valid under state law, the City of Bakersfield would not Kern County Administrative Policy and Procedures Manual Chapter 5 - Purchasing Procedures 531. Local Vendor Preference. The Board of Supervisors has approved and supports a local vendor preference which applies to all competitive bids for equipment, materials, supplies and contra services in which the contractual services are procured using a bid solicitation process based <. price. No consideration shall be given to any other factors such as qualifications, references or expe determining contract award, provided the vendor whose price is determined to be the lowest the bid specifications and requirements. The preference does not apply to public works/const projects which must be awarded to the low responsive, responsible bidder to specification pei Contract �ode. A preference will apply to professional service contracts awarded by means of process as described in section 511 of this manual. Local Vendor shall mean any business which: 1. Has had a fixed office or distribution point located in and having a street address within thE at least six months immediately prior to the issuance of the request for competitive bids by th purchasing agent; 2. Employs at least one full-time or two part-time employees whose primary residence is locai Kern County, or if the business has no employees, shall be at least fifty percent owned by one persons whose primary residence(s) is located within Kern County; and 3. Will credit all sales taxes generated pursuant to the contract awarded as a result of the appl this local vendor preference to its business location in Kern County. If the low bidder is not a local vendor, any local vendor that submitted a bid that is within five the low bid shall have the option of submitting a new bid within 48 hours (not including week holidays) of the time indicated in the bid documents of the bid opening. Such new bids must amount less than or equal to the low bid announced by the Purchasing Agent. If the Purchasing Agent receives any new bids from local vendors who have the option of subi bids within said forty-eight (48) hour period, the Purchasing Agent shall award the contract to vendor submitting the lowest bid. If no new bids are received, the contract shall be awarded to the original low biddE announced by the Purchasing Agent. If more than one new bid is received from local vendors, a tie for the low bid, the contract shall be awarded to the local vendor whose original bid was If the local vendor preference applies, the department shall notify the Purchasing Division of t and the Purchasing Division will make contact with the local vendor(s). The department shall <. requisition with the attached quote sheet and the Purchasing Division will complete the bid p make the award. �� fD 0.1 ni Q O � n m v � Cl n O � r* d A � 7 O Q N O (D � c� � C � � C � � N N � � � O Q < m �� O � �o n N '+ O n �. 0 � \ O O � f'f v � S (D \ � N --n fD � � A N � � � � N � al � N � O � � fD v O C 7 O � S v � O � � � O -,, S � � Q � �' � �� N C a" r� n r-F � � iil � � v X � � �' �� 7 rti � Q �o Q � �-c � S O r-f � � � � Q fD � v � = C. fD W N 3 fl' �, � c. �' 0 � C � C N � O r+ s f'1 � Ol � � � � � � n � <� N N N � n � Q � O n O � ai �� O 7 � C � O � (� N D � � O � n� O 7 �, 0 n�i � Q N C � � � � Q � � v 0 n N �' Q. Q fD -^ O � O O Q O � v � d � � � 0 � n' � � N N N � A � v � � � v � � �� O r°h S � O n'�i "� O n C � � � � � n N Q C � �� < � c v �,; O � O � � r� � � � �I � � I� a N � (D � lD N � � � tD � C v 0 \ O -y, � � O < co d fD C N C v O � � � Q Q.. rr O � � � �' C � �� N � N � � v � Q � n' � � c N � � � N � fl. � � �, � N � N N � 7 n (D � (D (D rt N� �' n O � � n' � r�f� S � (D Q � d O � v (D N � O �D 0'q C n� rt � � � T O � � � � � � � � N U"1 O O � � � � � O � S o� n� fD N c � � n � O A � !�D �, � (�D 7 � t� O O n v � C N � CD � N N � (D .� c v O S N v O C 7 r�f S !D � � � (� A !D < N �� N r-r n� x � < � � c � N � v � N � � C � � � � T N PI �G n�i � � � !D � v � � T � n O � n� n � � � � � C n � v � O -+, oa O O a. � v � Q v � N� � O � � N CI1 O O O O � O !�D < S (D � � a � a- � � � � fD (rtD � �� Q � � � � r� n r-' `G � � � n � <� � a� � rt C z O r O f) n1 v N � N N � n N d rr S N � (D Gl O � Oq O A O � � � �D O � O � � Q N � � � � � � Q O -n � � � N N � � m 0 v "� � �G � N � � � � X 7 � fl. N 0 Q � f7 O c � O -.�'r, s � � � � �� Q c m O S � C r=r v (D � n � � � � S � n � O v � O � 0 � 0 � v � v � 0 C � Q -+, � � � � rrt � x � 7 � a � o' � Q � � � C � � � 7 ao v � Q O � C O � � v � N N � O 7 N < (D � S (D (l �G N N � N A n d rt 0 7 � ro � N n� � Q A 0 � Q rr � 7 � a� 7 � f"r � � � n� v r-r � � O -y� r-h � v,' N m � r-r O 7 � v � � v � � O n a� O � � � n � � C � � v � � � N n � � � Q � O G Q �� Qq S al S N � C n � a� N �� OC v � n� oa �o � 0 Q � � OZ] � (D � � � � � �� n� rt � d Q O (�I v � Q Q m n�i � � fD Q � N � Q O s (D S fD 0 (D N � � � Q (D M � (D � Q Q (� � Oo (�D !D � O � Q C n fD � � Q O � v n � � � � Q O .Q c O r�r (� � �1 rF s � O � fD r�r � � Q fD � �� . � 00 S � O s. � � � 0 � S (D O � N � � Q O � c O � � � � � r-r � � � � Ol O n N � C � 7 � � � S a7 � � S 7 \° 0 O r-F S N O � � � � � 0 � C O r-r � � � P�' � � � O 7 O r+ S SS1 � � Q � � �' � � N N A � (D 3 a �, � � Q � (D � Ol N Ol � -a A 6) � � 0 � � ni � � N (D 7 n fD S (D O n v � Q N v �� S OU S fD r-F � � � � m 7 O � 0 � v � Q v v Q � � � � (D � 0.1 Q (� � O T � � O � 0 n � � 0 � � � � O � O A d � Q OJ 7 Q S � � � � c � �� 0'U v � C � � Q � Q C f'1 � � O � S � O A v � �%. � S m � n d � � G/f O (� n� rt � r`F � � Q � Q C n '-h O � N d Q a7 � � � � f�D � � 0 0 � n !D < � � � (D � � n (D � � (D 0 n N � � �, (D N � f1 � N� 61 � � � Q � � � � (D � � Q. � � � �� 0 � 0 n v v � � � fD � � A O � Q � Q Q � N O f1 v � � N N r"h � O � (ii (� � � O � v n � �� v 0 C � O � U'I O O O 0 O O � O fD 11l � O n al � N � � � f1 � 7 O rt O � X A ro �D Q � N U'i O 0 0 n 0 7 v n r-r � O � �� Q Q O O O � N � � O n v � � N � fD � � � i �, _��iflll/�r . ��' .. . TO: FROM: DATE: S U BJ ECT MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and City Council Nelson K. Smith, Finance Director November 10, 201 1 Council Referral # 274 - Vendor Preference Dual referral to the City Attorney and Financial Services: l. Councilmember Johnson requested that staff investigate how operates and legally justifies a 5� vehicle preference for local bring back a report; and 2. Councilmember Hanson requested that staff prepare a compa total number of dollars spent on purchases put out to bid for eac what 3�o and 5�o would mean to the process. In response to item # 2 City staff has reviewed all "non-construction" bid: through the purchasing division for fiscal year 2010-1 1 and have determin� dollars of bid awards during the 12 month period was $20,392,784. We also reviewed our bid files and vendor records for our top 100 vendor determined that approximately 25� of the above figure is related to Ic purchases; thus the remaining 75� is attributable to vendors outside the cit� Therefore, if the general concept is that awarding bids to local vendors wr had previously gone to outside vendors, then the 3� and 5� "credits' applied to only 75�0 of the $20.4 million amount ($20.4 million x 75� _$1 Given those perimeters: Three percent (3�) of $15.3 million is equal to $459,000. Five percent (5�0) of $15.3 million is equal to $765,000. Additional information - Staff from both the Finance Department and the City Attorney's offic additional information on the topic of local vendor preference and founc of our comparable cities have some sort of vendor preference policy prepared by the City Attorney's office is attached for your review. Two of the cities surveyed have a policy similar to Bakersfield where they all preference based on the local sales tax dollars that return to the city. One city (Modesto) has a policy very similar to Kern County where the loc allowed to "match" the low bid after the bid opening has taken place. The remainder of the cities surveyed have a variety of preference policies t characteristics as follows: - Local preference from 2.5� to 5.0� - Some policies carry dollar ($) caps from $5,000 to $25,000; - Some cities do not cap the local preference financial impact; - Some cities restrict the preference to the city limits; others use a boundary; others use a radius from city hall as the boundary; - Some cities require the local vendor to have been in business for time; some others require a certain number of employees, etc. In order to provide you with some options to consider we have outlined thr scenario policies for discussion purposes. Option # 1: Status quo - retain the current 1� local vendor policy which c encourage maximum competition and provides the city with the lowest ne products and services. Option # 2: 3�0 local preference with no dollar cap. This would expand policy beyond the sales tax nexus, but as a charter city the Council co� finding of general benefit to the community. Staff reviewed our vendor files as referenced earlier and applying the million purchase of products and services we estimate the potential finan to the City could be in the neighborhood of $600,000 per year in additional For example, if an out of town vendor bid $290,000 for the purchase of ten and a local vendor bid $300,000 for the ten police cars - a 5� credit would to the local vendor's bid ($300,000 x 0.05 =$15,000) brining their "bid plus c from $300,000 to $285,000 ($300,000 - $15,000 = $285,000); then for award � City would compare the local "bid plus credit" of $285,000 to the out of $290,000 and the bid would be awarded to the local vendor. The additic the City in this example would be $10,000; which is the difference betwee town bid of $290,000 and the $300,000 price ultimately paid to the local course the true "net cost" to the City is only $7,000 since the 1�o sales $300,000 purchase price (l�o of $300,000 =$3,000) would eventually be ret� city in the form of sales tax revenues. The example above is descriptive of how our current local preference p except we currently apply a 1�"credit" instead of the 5�o used in the ex currently use the city limits as the determining boundary and we requ vendors to be current on the payment of their local city business license ta� You could of course consider some mix of the scenarios, such as applying : cap to the 3� scenario. There are also some other factors that you n consider as you discuss the pros and cons of a policy change, such as: - The City of Bakersfield has very irregular boundaries. Using the Ci a factor higher than 1�o could generate challenges from some that are located in a county island or peninsula, where they coulc their activities are of public benefit as well; employing our residE our business tax, they may be a member of the Chamber of Comi - Retaining the city limits as the determining factor may annexation of some areas into the city. - Increasing the percentage beyond the 1� may eventually competition from outside vendors and may reduce motivation c bidders to sharpen their pencils, thus driving costs higher. We ha been questioned in the past when we only receive one bid propc We hope you find this additional information helpful in your discussion of thE � B A I� E R� F I E L D DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION & PARKS DIANNE HOOVER, DIRECTOR MEDIA ADVISORY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT November 10, 2011 Terry McC 661.326.3� Grand Opening Ceremony - Central Park at Mill Creek Playground Please join Mayor Harvey Hall, Councilmember Sue Benham, along with city c representatives from the project and community in opening the new playground at ( on Wednesday, November l bth. Central Park at Mill Creek now features the City of Bakersfield's first inclusive playc purpose of an inclusive playground is to allow children and adults of all abilities to plc together in a fun and welcoming environment. Rubberized safety surfacing cove playground allowing full access to all of the ground level features such as low climk level play panels, interactive elements and small slides. An elevated access ramp, v� to allow two wheel chairs to pass side by side, provides access to raised features su more complex slides and climbers, play panels, interactive zones, gyro spinner, tri- spiral traverse. The swing set features an inclusive swing seat with advanced restral upper and lower body support. The rubberized surfacing can be used for play as wE artistic element that reflects the Mill Creek water and wheel in the surfacing. Please er playground and support the Recreation and Parks Department in our vision to ensurE have the opportunity to gain the development and health benefits derived from unstr� in an inclusive environment. � B A I� E R� F I E L D DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION & PARKS DIANNE HOOVER, DIRECTOR CENTRAL PARK AT MILL CREEK PLAYGROUND FACT SHEET Address 600 19th Street Installation Time 8 weeks Opening Date November 16, 201 1 Contractor Meyer Civil Engineering, Inc. Brown & Fowler Construction, Inc. Equipment Manufacturer Playcraft Direct, Inc. Total Cost $240,000 Funding Source Community Development Block Grant Funds Amenities • Fully Inclusive Playground • Swings • Sidewalk • Safety Surfacing • Benches • Shade Tree O� �� 2W �� 9� i �, _��iflll/�r . ��' .. . TO: FROM: DATE: S U BJ ECT MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and City Council Nelson K. Smith, Finance Director November 8, 201 1 Council Referral # 279 - Tow Truck Rates Referral item: l. Councilmember Salas requested that staff provide a financial data regarding the tow truck rates and meet with the tow truck ol Councilmember Salas indicated to staff that he had conducted a very infc into tow truck rates and found that several companies in Bakersfield chc lower rates than are currently authorized by the City for police initiatec requested staff investigate this issue further and meet with the tow co further justify the rate increase being requested. Staff contacted the consultant for the towing coalition on October 21 described the general issue needing further review. Staff requested assi input from the towing coalition to properly identify and explain the various might explain the difference in rates between private tow services and c tow services. City staff conducted an informal survey of the tow coalition vendors and the average rate they would charge a private citizen to tow a car tei about $72. Comparing this rate to the current City rate of $148 and th� increase for a light duty tow to $165 is the focus of the remainder of this rep Staff inet with representatives from the towing coalition on November " received information regarding several factors that they attribute to the di costs. The City contract for tow services places several conditic rP�uirPmPnts �n thP r�t�ti�n�l t�w ��mn�niPS. whi�h �rP �ummc�ri�P�J hPlc - City contract has tow truck equipment standards that exceed thc to perform a private tow service. - City contract has employment standards requiring things like c driver background checks, training, certifications and uniform rE that exceed any general state requirements to perform a private - City contract requires each tow company under contract to pro� facilities of a certain size with specific security features in place 1 applicable to the costs or requirements of a private tow. - City contract contains property and liability insurance requirE exceed minimum state standards that would apply to a K operation. - City contract also imposes specific reporting requirements thai apply to a private tow service. - City contract also requires a service response regardless of owners ability to pay. The towing coalition group estimates thc receive full payment on 60� to 65�0 of work they perform un< contract. Payment for a private tow is normally verified prior � being done. While it is difficult to assign a specific dollar value to any one of these cumulative effect of these items lends itself to a higher cost of service prc claim that 35� to 40� of costs for towing services are never recovered i supportive of a higher per unit charge when compared to a private tow se� Secondary Analysis - Staff also gathered some information from sa "comparable cities" to see how our "police initiated" tow rates compared California. We found a wide variety of inethodologies regarding police tov Some cities treat the tow companies as franchises and share in the fee: Bakersfield does not provide franchises to tow companies and therefor collect a franchise fee. Many cities (including Bakersfield) charge admini: to each vehicle owner before their car can be released from impound. Local Agency Bakersfield Freemont Fresno Glendale Modesto Ontario Oxnard Pasadena Riverside San Bernardino Stockton Kern County Ca. Hiahwav Patrol Light Duty Tow Rate charged to owner $148 (Current fee) Not available $145 Not available $180 $140 $90 $90 $175 Not available $175 $175 200 (av City Share of Tow Rate (Franchise fee $-0- $-0- � � � � � ,� � � -0- -0- City Ad Imbour Not c Not c In Summary, the range of light duty tow charges runs from a low of $90 1 $200. The proposed increase from $148 to $165 would take us just above tr The range of administrative fees runs from a low of $60 to a high of $495. E in the middle of the group with five cities higher and five cities lower. cc: Alan Tandy Virginia Gennaro � S A K E I� S F I E L D OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM November TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Steven Teglia, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Response to Councilmember Johnson regarding incl� additional health plan option for the 2012 plan year. Background: During the special Council meeting held on November Councilmember Johnson requested staff look at the feasibility of adding an c heath plan to the City's health benefits package for the 2012 plan year. Response: Based on the required process discussed below and the current � which need to be met in preparation for the 2012 plan year, it is not pc additional health plan options to be properly identified, vetted and contracte year. However, staff can initiate discussions with the Insurance CommitteE 2012, on a potential RFP process to evaluate existing and or new health plan c the 2013 Plan Year. Current City Open Enrollment Schedule: With the approval of the final he contract for the 2012 plan year, which occurred on November 7t", sta processing the necessary agreements and moving forward with an Open E period for employees. • Open Enrollment is required by law • Allows employees the opportunity to make plan changes, including sE new health plan or adding dependents 2012 H Novemb Health Plan Review Process: Due to collective bargaining requirements, the p which the City annually reviews health benefits is a lengthy one, which inc involvement of the City's Insurance Committee and the Council's Committee. The process typically begins in late spring or early summE concluded by late fall. The typical process includes detailed analysis of plan � rate proposals and other plan structures which are then discussed over the multiple meetings with the Insurance and Personnel Committee's. Adding a Request for Proposals (RFP) process to the annual evaluation c above will require additional time and process. The RFP process is utilized tc evaluate existing and or new proposals from prospective providers and to c the preferred course of action from both the City's perspective and the persK the employees as they are represented by the Insurance Committee. The RFf which is broadly discussed below, can take about four (4) months from stari Some of the timeline can run concurrently with the normal annual process above, but utilizing an RFP would require an earlier start to the process to potential collective bargaining requirements to take place related to the resul� Overview of RFP Timeline: Attached to this memo is an overview of the RPF prc would typically be used to evaluate health plan proposals. The bullet poir provide a general overview of the timeline involved with the various steps. • Release of RFP - Day 1 • Intent to Bid Form and Signed Confidentiality Agreement Due - Day 10 • Pre-Proposer Conference (optional) - Day 15 • Proposer Questions Due - Day 20 • Complete Proposal Due - Day 45 • Interviews - Day 60 • Best and Final Offers Due (optional if necessary) - Day 65 • Estimated Date for Award of Contract - Day 85 • Contract Effective Date - Day 120 Some of the typical evaluation criteria used to evaluate a response to an include the following: • Fees/Rates/Network Discounts • Adherence to RFP Instructions and Overall Responsiveness • Network Disruption • Ability to Perform Services Requested in RFP • Experience Offering Services to Similar Sized Entities and References • Performance Guarantees Oyerview of Request for Proposal Process: The attached is a sample timetable and suggested evaluation criteria which Segal typically uses for conducting a Request for Proposal, RFP for a public entity for an HMO Medical Plan. The timetable anticipates a sufficient amount of time to allow for the internal evaluation of the bids and recommendations for award of contract to the elected body. This timetable also anticipates sufficient time for vetting of the proposal by the Insurance Committee and the Personnel Committee of the City, prior to a final recommendation to the Council. The City and the Insurance Committee would work with Segal to develop the weighting of each category that is listed and modify the descriptive language for each of the categories. The weighting of the evaluation categories allows for a defensible public procurement and also allows the evaluation committee to assign as more important certain categories on which the recommendation will be made. In addition to the RFP release date, an additional 15 to 20 days of RFP preparation and data collection time should be added onto the project plan, for the Consultant and the City to gather the information and edit the RFP prior to the release date. RFP Proposal Timeline Action Due Date RFP Released Day I Intent to Bid Form and Signed Confidentiality Day 10 Agreement Due Pre-Proposer Conference Optional Da IS Proposer Questions due Day 20 Complete Proposal Due Day 45 PRIORITY-LIST'ED OFFEROR Interviews Day 60 Best and Final Offers Due (optional if necessary) Day 65 Estimated Date for Award of Contract Day 85 Contract Effective Date Day 120 PROPOSAL EVALUATION l. INTRODUCTION: The City of Bakersfield seeks the highest quality organization to provide medical service benefits through an HMO plan offering to its employees and retirees. Throughout the selection process, the The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion: a. To not award the contract to the lowest cost OFFEROR. b. To not award the contract at all. , 2. EVALUATION PROCESS: An Evaluation Committee selected by the City will review and evaluate all proposals submitted by the deadline specified in this RFP. The evaluation process will be conducted in six phases: Phase 1— Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements Phase 2— Establishment of PRIORITY-LIST'ED OFFERORS Phase 3— Discussions with PRIORITY-LISTED OFFERORS, if any Phase 4— Best and Final Offers (Optional) Phase 5— Final Evaluation of Proposals Phase 6 — Award 3. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND POINTS: The evaluation criteria listed below will be used to evaluate and rank OFFERORS' proposals. Criteria Points Fees/Rates/Network Discounts Adherence to RFP Instructions and Overall Responsiveness Network Disruption Ability to Perform Services Requested in RFP (Including the Special Conditions in Section I) Experience offering services to similar sized Entities and References Performance Guarantees Total 100 Description of Evaluation Criteria: e� Fees/Rates/Network Discounts: For the fully insured options the cost will be calculated as the rates times the annual estimated enrollment for plan of benefits for which a proposal sheet is submitted using the enrollment that is contained in the appendix of this RFP and the extent of any future rate guarantees. v Adherence to RFP Instructions and Overall Responsiveness: This category reflects the OFFERORS thoroughness of response contained in the proposal submission, adherence to the instructions contained in this Request for Proposal and inclusion of all requested information in its proposal. � Network Disruption: Network disruption will be evaluated based upon the information that is submitted in this Request for Proposal and will be measured upon the providers, facilities, and sources of care and services used by the active and retired participants in the plans for which a e proposal is being submitted, as measured from the experience of the plan over the past 3 years (or the existence of the plan if less than 3 years) The census files submitted to OFFERORS include residence zip code locations. Network disruption will be analyzed on this basis: o The overall percent of the plan enrolled population that will be not be required to change providers from those that had been used over the past three years or from inception of the plan � Ability to Perform Services Requested in RFP (including special conditions in Appendix D}: This category will evaluated based upon the responses contained in the proposal with respect to the OFFERORS agreement to perform all of the services required in a manner and to the speci�cations outlined in this RFP. The OFFERORS thorough explanation of how it will complete the required tasks outlined in the RFP will be evaluated based upon its understanding of the tasks, the demonstrated ability to perform the tasks and agreement to dedicate the necessary resources to perform the tasks. � Experience offering services to similar sized Entities and References: The analysis of this category will be the result of reviewing the list of referred Entities for which the OFFEROR is providing identical or very similar services that are comparable is number of enrolled participants, benefit plan comparability, complexity of administration and a similar sized city and geographic dispersion of participant population. Each supplied reference will be interview for an evaluation of the performance of the OFFERORS with respect to the contracted services performed for the referenced Entity. o Performance Guarantees: This category will be evaluated upon the agreement of the OFFEROR to be held accountable for each of the category of performance guarantee as stipulated in this RFP and the overall penalty agreed to for each category of performance that is being guaranteed. Paqe 1 of 2 STREETS DIVISION — WORK SCHEDULE Week of Nov. 14, 2011 — Nov. 18, 2011 Resurfacinq/Reconstructinq streets in the following areas: Resurfacing Streets in the area north of 21 St St between "B" St & Elm St (weather perr Blade Sealing in the area north of Brundage between "H" St and Chester Ave also be1 and Oleander (weather permitting) Reconstructing streets in the area south of Planz Rd and west of Wible Rd (weather Miscellaneous Streets Division projects: Video inspection of City owned Sewer & Storm lines to evaluate condition of pipes Repairing Curb & Gutters at Bus Stops in various areas Placing Grindings on the Kelso Peak access road Preparing for Crack Sealing program THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Paqe 2 of 2 STREETS SWEEPING SCHEDULE Monday, Nov. 14, 2011 Between So. "H" St. & Union Avenue — Pacheco Rd. & Hosking Rd. Between Stockdale Hwy. & Truxtun Ave. (ext.) — Coffee Rd & Partridge Ave. Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 Between Panama Lane & Woodmere Dr. — Ashe Rd. & Stine Rd. Between District Blvd. & Panama Ln. -- Gosford Rd. & Ashe Rd. Between Akers Rd. & Phyllis St. — Harris Rd. & Panama Ln. City areas between Akers Rd. & Stine Rd. — Harris Rd. & Panama Ln. Cul-De-Sacs on the north side of Angela Wy., between Manely Ct. & Cris Ct. Between Oswell Park Dr. & Brundage Ln. — Oswell St. & Leeta St. Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2011 City areas between Workman St. & Sterling Rd. — 58 Hwy. & Baja Dr. Between Morning Dr. & Park Dr. — College Ave. & Willis Ave. Between Buena Vista Rd. & Old River Rd. — White Ln. & Panama Ln. Between Old River Rd. & Gosford Rd. — White Ln. & Pacheco Rd. Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011 City areas between Stockdale Hwy. & Ming Ave. — Ashe Rd. & Gosford Rd. Between EI Portal/Laurelglen Blvd. & Ashe Rd. — Ming Ave. & So. Halfmoon/Olympia Between Ashe Rd. & Stine Rd. — Ming Ave. & So. Halfmoon/Edgemount Dr. Between Coffee Rd. & Wilson Rd. (ext.) — White Ln. & So. Halfmoon/Olympia Dr. Friday, Nov. 18, 2011 Between Stockdale Hwy. & Ming Ave. — Allen Rd. & Old River Rd. Between Old River Rd. & Coffee Rd. — Ming Ave. & Ridge OakM/estwold Dr. yi'ti�.' � ' •r��„ . �ti� l � �� 1:� ��.,. �. Date: To: From: Subject: BAKERSFIELD POLICE MEMORANDUM November 7, 2011 Alan Tandy, City Manager Greg Williamson, Chief of Police Directed Policing Unit/Gang Violence Report I have enclosed the Directed Policing Unit's monthly gang statistics report for Oct� Please call if you have any questions. GSW/vrf � 45 40 35 � � 20 15 � 5 C ��-=�--�,�t� � �„�-={�z�¢�; �.o�:., � �� .e:p_ , � , ,�... �` BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTED POLICING UNIT MONTHLY REPORT OCTOBER 2011 YEAR TO DATE GANG VIOLENCE INDEX 2009-2011 2009 2010 20 �SHOOTINGS aHOMICIDES* .� �� .. �? . � ��-=�--�,�t� � �„�-={�z�¢�; �.o�:., � �� .e:p_ , � , ,�... �` Felony Arrests BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTED POLICING UNIT MONTHLY REPORT OCTOBER 2011 DPU Monthly Stats for October 2011 Misdemeanor Arrests Felony Warrant Arrests Misdemeanor Warrant Arrests Hours In Training Guns Seized 456 I FI's 22 Citations 763 Probation and Parole Searches 244 Hrs. Assisting Other De artment Sections 42 Supplemental Re orts 92 GeneralOffense Reports 5 Vehicle Reports 140 Patrol Call Response Year to Date DPU Statistics January - October 2011 554 Felony Arrests 174 Citations 230 Misdemeanor Arrests 5103 Probation and Parole Searches 1 19 Felony Warrant � 923 Hrs. Assisting Other Arrests De artment Sections Misdemeanor Supplemental 306 Warrant Arrests 553 Re orts 998 Hours In Training 677 General Offense Reports 1 �� Guns Sei�PC� f�4 Vehic:le Ren�rts 7 I Searcf �� 14 59 100 3 6 1 4 Court Comr� Conta Projec Worke Hours I nvesti 201 1 S 2010 S 2009 S 2008 S 73 I Searc 1972 Court 572 Comr Contc 370 Projec WorkE 2330 Hours Invest 30 201 1 � ��-=�--�,�t� � �„�-={�z�¢�; �.o�:., � �� .e:p_ , � , ,�... ��: 105 90 75 60 45 30 15 0 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTED POLICING UNIT MONTHLY REPORT OCTOBER 2011 October 2010-2011 COMPARISON Felony Arrests Misdemeanor Guns Seized Search Arrests Warrant: ❑ 2010 ❑ 2011 . ��-=�--�,�t� � �„�-={�z�¢�; �.o�:., � �� .e:p_ , � , ,�... �` 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTED POLICING UNIT MONTHLY REPORT OCTOBER 2011 2009-2011 YEAR TO DATE COMPARISON 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 Arrests Guns Seized Search Warra 0 2009 ❑ 2010 ❑ 2011 10 : C: !� 2 �� ns�► �� ,�� DPU BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTED POLICING UNIT MONTHLY REPORT OCTOBER 2010 GANG RELATED SHOOTINGS - 2009-2011 (YEAR TO DATE ONLY)