HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-81-0871i
y
C.
1
RESOLUTION 8 ' 8 7 1
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE MOST QUALIFIED CONSULTING
FIRMS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH MANAGEMENT ADVISORY
SERVICES FOR THE MIAMI POLICE PERFORMANCE PROJECT;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE CONTRACT ;r
NEGOTIATIONS WITH SAID FIRMS ON A RANKED ORDER BASIS
FOR SAID PROJECT TO ARRIVE AT A CONTRACT WHICH IS
II FAIR, COMPETITIVE AND REASONABLE; AND REQUIRING THE',,
CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT SAID NEGOTIATED CONTRACT TO r
THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE
I EXECUTION THEREOF.
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Miami Police Performance Project is to
�
develop a Police Performance Measurement Systen which can systematically
i
i and accurately assess police agency performance; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission by Resolution No. 79-798 has determined
i
that the creation of the Miami Police Performance Project is in the best
interest of the general public; and
WHEREAS, funding for the Miami Police Performance Project in the
amount of $70,755 has been awarded by LEAA, and State and local matching
funds in the amount of $7,862 have been committed to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission by Resolution No. 79-798 has authorized
the City Manager to take such actions as may be necessary to execute all
necessary agreements to implement the Mini -Block Grant Projects, to include
E
the Miami Police Performance Project; and
WHEREAS proposals for the Miami Police Performance Project have
® been submitted by the following alphabetically listed firms:
®' Behavioral Science Research Institute
BLC Systems, Ltd.
�. Center for Local Police
N
Donahue, Groover & Associates, Inc.
® Ernst & Whinney
ti§ -s
Koepsel l Associates
Police Executive Research Forum
® ' ' Touche Ross & Co.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
® Arthur Young & Co.
Mrt '
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA:
Section 1. The most qualified consulting firms, as determined by a
purpose of selecting a firm to provide consulting services for the Miami
Police Performance Project.
Section 2. The City Commission authorizes the City Manager, or his
designee, to negotiate a contract with the most qualified firm to provide
said services.
In the event the City Manager is unable to negotiate with said
firm an agreement which in his opinion is fair, reasonable and competitive,
then the City Manager shall terminate negotiations and proceed to negotiate
with the second firm from the ranked order listing of qualified firms, and
to continue in that order down the list until such time as an agreement is
reached.
Section 3. The City
Commission directs the City Manager to present
the proposed contract to the
City Commission at the earliest scheduled
meeting of the Commission after negotiations have been completed for said
contract for approval by the
Commission prior to execution thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3th day of OctohPr 1981.
Mairinp A_ F_prre
M A Y 0 R
City Clerks
f
WV'
xr'
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
t t C >s a t flt tirr_
(:
Assistant City Attorney
ti
APPRO TO FORM
SS:
('
'
nW
y Atto
2
1 i
� fit
"r t,
ri F M z
a �
81-871
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
T" Howard V. Gary DATE September 29, 1981 FILE FIN 18
City Manager
SUBJECT Police Performance Measurement
i
Project
<ROM Pchief
enneth I. HarmshEFEPENCES: Proposed Resolution
of Police }�
ENCLOSURES:
S.:
iF .x
'� •• It is recommended that the City Commission ti
�;• authorize the City Manager to enter intoL
contract negotiations with the most
0-
qualified firm, as determined by an objective
and comprehensive evaluation, to provide
consulting services for the Police Performance x
- Ca- Measurement Project in the Police Department;
that following completion of a proposed
contract, the City Manager will present said
contract to the Commission for its approval,
per the attached resolution.
The Miami Police Performance Measurement Project is part of
the Mini -Block Grant application authorized by the City
Commission by Resolution 79-798, November 26, :i979. Federal
funding in the amount of $70,755, and state and local
matching funds in the amount of $3,931 each have been committed
to this Project.
The purpose of the Miami Police Performance Measurement Project
is to develop a system which will systematically and accurately
assess police agency performance in operational areas. A more
detailed description of anticipated benefits of the Project is
attached to this memo.
A comprehensive and objective evaluation of the 10 proposals
submitted by firms for the Project is underway by the Police
Department. A copy of the evaluation instrument is attached
to this memo. Following our evaluation, an ordering of the
firm's proposals will be made, and the Police Department will
make recommendations for negotiating a proposed contract with
the most qualified firm.
Following a proposed contract,the Police Department will
submit another resolution seeking Commission approval of same.
KIH:wp
cc: Law Department
Management & Budget
81 -871
In re the Bureau of Criminal Justice Assistance Special
Condition # 2.b. for the Police Performance Project, City of
Miami Mini--F3]ocic, xequesi:ing a more defined explanation of
s
the benefits received from the Police Prot -ram Performance
the
Measurement System by i,lie Department , the Officer, and
Public at large, the following informat on i-s provided:
,.
{,
The Miami. Police Department presently has no formal
mechanism to measure its performance as the municiple agency
services in Miami-.
providing public safety Although the
is constantly being assessed by its
Department's performance
officers, supervisors, managers, other City Departments,
police
City Manager, elected political representatives, and the public,
that assessment is more often an intuitive perceptive measure,
often based on limited or inadequate information.
During these times of severe fiscal restraint by government
at all levels, it becomes imperative that our limited resources
be used and deployed in the most efficient manners possible.
This need is even more critical in Miami, as in other cities,
where crime is increasing significantly.
The benefits of a Police Performance Measurement System
which systematically and accurately can assess police agency
the Miami
performance are numerous and obvious. In the case of
Department's integration of the Police Performance Project
Police
with I.C.A.P., these benefits become even more direct. I.C.A.P.
is an exemplary proven police service delivery concept which
approach to the management and
focuses on building a structured
integration of police services. By linking the Police Performance
Project with I.C. A.P., not only will the Miami Police Department
to
be developing the I.C.A.P. structures and functions rationally
Project
deliver basic police services, but the Police Performance
being
will provide the measurement of how well those services are
provided with available resources.
The Police Department will be able to determine the level of
its performance not only in terms of effectiveness (output), but
input). By assessing
also in terms of efficiency (output based on
delivery performance in this manner, rational
= its police service
and timely decisions can be made concerning the use and deployment
of its resources. Through the systematic monitoring of police
performance, timely adjustments can be made by management as
Planning for future
performance and police service needs change.
is more accurate with the knowledge of the
police service needs
effectiveness and efficiency of various resource strategies which
_ will be provided by the Police Performance Project.
A Police Department which can readily identify and address
performance needs and deficiencies will be viewed by the community
as being more responsive to that community, and will receive
and public cooperation.
benefits in terms of better relations
81 -8'71
The officers of the Miami Police Department will benefit
by having their work efforts more efficently directed through
ff a managerial system which is constantly measuring; how well our
personnel and other resources are being utilized.
The direct support services to police officers (eg. Crime
Analysis, Operational Planning) wi.l.l be measi_)red so as to perform
more effectively, thtas providing increased assistance to the
officers' crime fighting activities. The police officer will
sense a Departmental commitment to recognizing its officers as
valuable resources to be managed as effectively and efficiently
as possible, and will benefit through enhanced morale, dedication,
and personal self -actualization.
The community will clearly benefit from a Police Performance
Measurement System in that the more efficiently police resources
are utilized, the less costly and more effective those services
become to the taxpayers and persons served. A police agency which
seeks oto monitor and assess its performance clearly -becomes .more _
accountable to that community which it serves. Enhanced public
confidence in the police leads to better Police -community relations
and citizen cooperation in both crime prevention and crime figthing.
..
PROPOSAL EVALUATION
" POLICE PERFORMANCE PROJECT
.i7i f i i
MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT
P A
S
5CC
`^
PROPOSER
{ Y 3
4-
t
Ntr
DATEg.
_
1u `,re'ti i r
..rhd
�r�...>;�'."'�'�.�a� EVALUATOR
Proposer Identification
(Rk.P
Z.1.)
Statement of Objectives
(RFP
2.2)
Management Summary
( RFP
_2.3) .
Work Plan
(RFP
2.4)
Personnel
(RFP
2.5)
Prior Experience
(RFP
2.6)
Authorized Negotiators
(RFP
2.8)
Compliance with Law
Cost and Price Analysis
(RFP
(RFP
2.9)
2.10)
Cost of Supplies and
Materials
(RFP
2.10.2)
Other Direct Costs
(RFP
2.10.3)
General and Administrative
Burden of Overhead
(RFP
2.10.4)
Transportation and
Per Diem
(RFP
2.10.5)
Printing Price
(RFP
2.10.6)
Project Cost Schedule(RFP
2.10.7)
Fiscal Paramaters
(RFP
2.11)
II. Deliverable Items (Check Off)
Monthly Progress Reports
Monthly Financial Reports
Quarterly Progress Reports
Preliminary Final Project
Report
Fully Developed Measurement
Instrument
Training Package
Final Project Report
81 -8'71
Y 1 �
w,'
M �'
t,
StLECTION CRITERIA (Score 0 to 10)
Scoring - Each major criterion below will be rated on a 0 to 10 scale, with 0 being totally unsatis-
factory and 10 being excellent.
Knowledge and Experience with Program, Score
Performance, and Productivity Measurement
This criterion should be evaluated particularly
for the individuals who will perform the work
efforts.
Look for dolionstrated familiarity with principles
and theory as well as ability to implement practi-
cal, successful, and continuing programs in pro-
ductivity and organizational performance measure-
ment.
Consideration should be for background in:
Does the proposal appear realistic for
developing, implementing, and operating
an ICAP based Performance Measurement
System in the hiPD?
Given current and reasonably anticipated
resources and capabilities of the MPD, does
the proposal seem reasonable and practical
for the time period allowed?
Weight
Factor
X 25 =
X 20 =
Adjustel-
Score
Adjuste
Score
Individual and Firm Qualifications Score
Firm qualificai-ions should be assessed
as to reputation, longevity, stability,
size, and ocher relevant characteristics.
Weight
Factor
X 15 =
Individual. qualifica'i_ons should be assess-
ed as to their documented experience, train-
ing, and education background in management
productivity, performance assessment, instru-
ment development and assessment, training
design, ICAP technical assistance. Individual's
experiences in larger police agencies should
be determined.
The individual's qualifications should be viewed
in context of their specific involvement in the
work plan.
D. Demonstration of Understanding of I.C.A.P.
Score
Weight
Factor
Adjustec
Score
Ad juste
Score
nature of the 4 main ICAP
r
_� i
in
components (i.e. Data Collection,
Analysis,(tYf
Planning, and Service Delivery)?
4J 1 CYl � ik:
Is the responsive to the
embryonic
t r ; �s"u
proposal
state of MPD ICAP.?
Y a�
® Does the proposal comprehensively
identify
ICAP impact performance assessment areas in
--® the MPD?
=_ How does the proposal purport to
link perform-
ance/productivity assessment with
our develop-
ze
„r
ing ICAP?
81-871
{
t j
Does the proposal address all ICAP related
<� areas (RFP 3.1)?
i Does the proposal provide for ICAP monitor-
ing and evaluation (RFP 3.5)?
Will proposed work effort result in an ICAP
j Performance Assessment Instrument, and ulti-
mately a Performance Measurement System?
Does the proposal provide for ICAP remedial
Technical Assistance (RFP 3.7)?
Evaluate the proposal goal in terms of Police
Performance Project stated goals (RFP 3.2).
Assess the proposal's ability to achieve sig-
nificant Police Performance Project objectives
(RFP 3.3).
Will implementation of proposed Police Perform-
ance Measurement System result in the MPD
achieving desired project results (RFP 3.4)?
Is adequate allowance made for interface with
other related MPD programs (RFP 3.9)?
Does proposed methodology follow methodology
outlined in Section IV of RFP? If proposed
methodology varies, is it sound, reasonable,
and will it result in desired project results?
Is work approach clearly defined, well thought
out and reasonable? Are they trying to do too
much at the same time?
Evaluate Work Plan in terms of -
reasonableness
efficiency
time on -site
travel -and per diem minimized
relationship to proposal objectives
demands/needs for hPD resources
Are required items, listed on first page of this
Evaluation Form, contained? Deliverables?
Weight Adjust=_
knowledge and Experience with Police Score Factor Score
Organizations.
X 15
This criterion should be evaluated
particularly for the individuals who will
perform the work efforts.
Look for documented previous work efforts,
with larger urban police departments."}++,x`
Assess the work efforts/output of above.
d4r
Does proposal exhibit knowledge and
expertise in its approach to working in
a police organization?
Weight•,. Adjust
F . Cost 'Score Factor Score
X 5 =
Are the number of hours reasonable in
terms of work effort proposed?
Are non -productive costs (e.g. travel;°�
per diem, etc.) minimized?
Are work efforts, as reflected in Projects
Cost Schedule, consistent with MPD prior
,.d
ities in developing the Police Performance
y + +
Project
Do costs comply with City, State, and Federal
-
fiscal guidelines?
ar �
- 3 -
5 x in'i �=rkf iC k-r"Y,
114 r''
i; ;�
�"
s
01,
TOTAL ADJUSTED SCORE
(Sum of Adjusted Scores