Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBack-Up from Law DeptSec. 18-86. - Competitive negotiations/competitive sealed proposals. (a) Conditions for use. (1) Competitive negotiations/competitive sealed proposals shall be used in those circumstances in which it is both practicable and advantageous for the city to consider a range of competing plans, specifications, standards, terms and conditions so that adequate competition will result and award be made not principally on the basis of price, but to the respondent whose proposal contains the most advantageous combination of price, quality or other features. All contracts shall be signed by the city manager. (2) A contract may be entered into by use of the competitive negotiation/competitive sealed proposal methods when: a. The chief procurement officer determines that the complex specialized nature or technical details of a particular procurement make the use of competitive sealed bidding either not practicable or reasonable, or not advantageous to the city; or b. Specifications or scope of work cannot be fairly or objectively prepared so as to permit competition in the invitation for bids; or C. Technology, electronic, software, and system applications are available from a limited number of sources; or d. Qualifications and the quality of the service to be delivered can be considered more important than price. (3) Competitive negotiations/competitive sealed proposals shall be used in the procurement of personal and professional services except for: a. Professional services as defined in Florida Statute § 287.055, as amended from time to time. b. Legal services. c. Services related to the cultural, educational, recreational or park activities provided by non- profit organizations within city parks. These services may be awarded without competitive negotiations if the city manager makes a written finding, supported by reasons, to the city commission that competitive negotiation methods are not practicable or advantageous. Such finding must be ratified and the award approved by an affirmative vote of four -fifths of the commission after a properly advertised public hearing. d. Maintenance agreements to support proprietary software applications (b) Competitive negotiations method. Where the contract does not exceed $50,000.00, at least three written proposals shall be sought and the city shall enter into competitive negotiations to determine which proposal is most advantageous to the city. The written proposals received and the results of the evaluation shall be maintained as a public record. The contract may be awarded by the city manager upon certification of compliance with competitive negotiations method by the chief procurement officer. The city manager shall submit to the city commission on an annual basis a list of contracts awarded by the city manager through this method. (c) Competitive sealed proposal method. Where the contract exceeds $50,000.00, the city may utilize the following competitive sealed proposal method: (1) Request for proposals (RFP) or request for letters of interest (RFLI) or request for qualifications (RFQ) setting forth the terms and conditions of the professional or personal services sought, including but not limited to, scope of work and evaluation factors, shall be issued. The RFP, RFLI or RFQ, as applicable, may, in the exercise of the reasonable professional discretion of the city manager, director of the using agency, and the chief procurement officer, include a five percent evaluation criterion in favor of proposers who maintain a local office, as defined in section 18-73. In such cases, this five percent evaluation criterion in favor of proposers who maintain a local office will be specifically defined in the RFP, RFLI or RFQ, as applicable; otherwise, it will not apply. All RFPs involving major projects must be reviewed by the office of the independent auditor general ("auditor general") prior to submittal to the city commission for consideration. Additionally, after city commission is an award pursuant to a RFP for a major project, all resultant agreements must also be reviewed by the auditor general prior to execution. (2) Mailing lists. Lists of prospective proposers/respondents may be compiled pursuant to section 18-85 (competitive sealed bidding). (3) Public notice. Adequate public notice in a newspaper of general circulation shall be provided pursuant to section 18-85. (4) Pre -proposal conference. A pre -proposal conference may be conducted to explain the requirements of the proposed procurement and shall be announced to all prospective proposers known to have received an RFP, RFLI, or RFQ. Conferences should be held long enough after the RFP, RFLI, or RFQ has been issued to allow prospective proposers to become familiar with the proposed procurement, but sufficiently before receipt of proposal to allow consideration of the conference results in preparing their proposals. Nothing stated at a pre -proposal conference shall change the RFP, RFLI, or RFQ unless a change is made by written addendum, which shall be supplied to all those prospective proposers known to have received an RFP, RFLI, or RFQ. All pre -proposal conferences shall be recorded, and, if a transcript is made, such transcript shall be a public record. (5) Receipt of proposals. Sealed proposals must be received by the city clerk no later than the time and date specified for submission in the request for proposals or request for letters of interest or requests for qualifications. The name of each proposer shall be recorded by the city clerk or its designee, and the record and each proposal, to the extent consistent with applicable state law, shall be open to public inspection. (6) Proposal evaluation. An evaluation committee shall be appointed by the city manager for the purpose of evaluating proposals based upon the criteria contained in the RFP, RFLI or RFQ. No other factors or criteria shall be used in the evaluation. As may be provided in the RFP, RFLI or RFQ, proposers may be invited to make oral presentations regarding their Proposals. The recommendations of the evaluation committee shall be submitted to the city manager. In the event only one proposal is received, the evaluation committee may proceed with the evaluation, or request the city manager to reject all proposals, whichever is in the best interests of the city. a. After reviewing the evaluation committee's recommendation, the city manager may: 1. Approve the recommendation of the evaluation committee, and the city manager shall then authorize contract negotiations through city staff. Upon completion of contract negotiations, the city manager shall then submit his or her award recommendation and negotiated contract(s) to the city commission for approval, at which time, written notice shall be provided to all proposers; 2. Approve the recommendation of the evaluation committee, written notice of which shall be provided to all proposers, and the city manager shall then submit his or her recommendation to the city commission; 3. Reject the evaluation committee's recommendation and instruct the evaluation committee to re-evaluate and make further recommendations; 4. Reject all proposals; or 5. Recommend that the city commission reject all proposals. b. After reviewing the city manager's recommendation, the city commission may: 1. Approve the city manager's award recommendation and negotiated contract(s); 2. Approve the city manager's recommendation and authorize contract negotiations; Reject all proposals; 4. Reject all proposals and instruct the city manager to reissue a solicitation; or Reject all proposals and instruct the city manager to enter into competitive negotiations with at least three individuals or firms possessing the ability to perform such services and obtain information from said individuals or firms relating to experience, qualifications and the proposed cost or fee for said services, and make a recommendation to the city commission. (7) Award. Award shall be made to the responsive and responsible proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the city as determined by the city commission in accordance with the evaluation criteria contained in the RFP, RFLI or RFQ. The decision of the city commission shall be final. Written notice of the award shall be given to the successful proposer. Threshold amounts referenced herein shall include the values associated with potential options of renewal. Awards made by the city manager or by the city commission shall include authority for all subsequent options of renewal, if any. The aforementioned options of renewal shall be exercisable at the option of the city manager if, after review of past performance under the contract, the city manager determines in his/her sole discretion that exercise of the option of renewal is in the best interest of the city. (Ord. No. 12271, § 2, 8-22-02; Ord. No. 13275, § 2, 7-14-11; Ord. No. 13538, § 2, 7-23-15; Ord. No. 13667, § 2, 3-9-17)