The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEvaluation Committee ReportDate:May 2, 2014 To: Lester Sole Director Internal Services Department 'thew Miriam Singer, CPPO Assistant Director Internal Services Depaiiment From: Lydia Osborne; CPPO, CPPB Procurement Contracting Office •Chairperson, Evaluation/Selection .Committee Subject : Report of Evaluation/Selection CoMmittee for RFQ No, 00008 Financial Advisory Services; General Segment The County issued a solicitation to obtain proposals from qualified financial advisors to provide financial adviSory,services for general obligation, special obligation, public health trust/general obligation„ public health trust/sales tax, transit and Sunshine State debt transactions and services, These transactions will include issuance of bonds, notes, certificates or other financing instruments (excluding swap and derivative products), ard on -going advisory services ("Financial Advisory Services") for the Garrity's General Segment. The 'County has retained ‘a •swap advisor to provide financial advisory services for all swap, and derivative products, The County has separated all of its Financial Advisory SeiVices into three 'Segments": 1) Water ,& Sewer; 2) General Segment; and 3) Enterprise Segment, The County has issued a separate solicitation for each Segment. The General Segment Includes all financial advisory services for the County, other than financial advisory services for its peripheral agencies, its Water & Sewer Segment (Water &‘Sewer Department) and EnterPrise Segment (Aviation„ Seaport and Public Works and Waste Management Departments). The Evaluation/Selection Committee (Committee) has completed the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to the solicitation following the guidelines published in the solicitation. Committee meeting dates: March 11, 2014 (kick-off meeting) Aprii 9, 2014 (evaluation, scoring and recommendation) Verification of corrtpliance With contract measures: A Small Business Enterprise (SBE). selection factor was assigned to this solicitation. None of the four proposers qualified for the selection factor. Verification of'complianee With tninitnuni qUalifleation requirements: The solicitation had minimum qualification .requirements 'WhiCh Were reviewed by. the Chairperson and Frank HintOrt Bond Administration Division Director, of the client department, Finance. All of the proposers mat the requirements, Local Certified.Service-Disabled Veteran's Business Enterprise Preference: Veteran's Preference was considered in accordance with the applicable ordinance, None of the proposers qualified for the preference, Page 2 Memo to Lester Sole Report of Evaluation/Selection Committee for RFQ No. 00008 Financial Advisory Services, General Segment The Committee decided not to hold oral presentations. Price proposals were reviewed for all proposers after the review and scoring of technical proposals. The final scores are as follows: Proposer 1. Public Financial Management 2. First Southwest Company 3. Public Resources Advisory Group 4. Dunlap & Associates, Inc. Technical Price Total Price/Cost Score Score Combined Submitted Score (max.425) (max. 75) (max.500) 390 385 380 300 68 62 64 62 458 447 444 362 $537,500 $588,750 $527,500 $342,500 Price was submitted as fixed rates which included all expenses to be paid per bond work. Compensations shall be paid for work attributed to a bond issue on a per bond rate basis. Notwithstanding the price submitted above, there shall be a minimum and a maximum charge per bond issue (see table below). The recommended firm's price submitted and minimum/maximum charge per bond issue will be negotiated. Proposer Charge Per Bond Issue Minimum Maximum Public Financial Management $25,000 $175,000 First Southwest Company $20,000 $300,000 Public Resources Advisory Group $40,000 $200,000 Dunlap & Associates, Inc. $35,000 $9o,000 Local Preference: Local Preference was considered in accordance with applicable ordinance, and although the second highest ranked firm was within 5% of the highest ranked firm, it did, not affect the outcome as the highest ranked firm is a local firm. Other information: A firm proposing on multiple segments will only be recommended for award for one segment. The Committee will recommend a firm for each of the three solicitations in the following order; I) Water & Sewer Segment; 2) General Segment; 3) Enterprise Segment. Once a firm is recommended for a Segment, the firm is ineligible to be recommended for award for any of the other two financial advisory services segments. Negotiations; The Committee recommends that the County enter into negotiations with the highest ranked proposer for the General Segment, Public Financial Management (PFM). The following individuals will participate in the negotiations: Lydia Osborne, Procurement Contracting Officer, ISD Frank Hinton, Bond Administration Division Director, Finance Ariesa Wood, Bond Administrator, Finance David Ritchey, Assistant Director, Financial Services, Miami -Dade Transit Page3 Morn° to. Lester Sola Report of Evaklatch/Selection Cornitittee for RR) No. 00008 Financial AdVisory Services, Oeneral Segment Consensus 8taternent: The Committee deterrnined. that PFM has the necessary qualifications, relevant experience, resources, and trained personnel required to provide the County with various finanCial.advisory- services, including transaction advisory, long-tenn capital planning, and rating agency management, among Other services. PFM it the incumbent firm for these services for the current General Segment contract (RFC190), since 2005. PFM has assisted and advised the County with over $2 billion of neW Moneyand refunding transactions procuring over $90; million of net present .value savings to the County. Most recently, PFM assisted the County in financing -approximately 5400 million in Building Better Communities projects that was completed through an innovative flexible drawdown bond progrAni. PPM, founded over 35 years ago, is a national firm with an extensive platform of services and industry expertise, with 34 officesstrategically. placed throughout the United .States, PFM is registered as a Municipal advisor with the Securities and Exchange 'Commission the Murtiolpal Securities Rulemaking Board, PFM has been ranked as the number one financial advisor,. for the past five years by Thomson Financials (this -represents the firms participation as Sole Financial Advisor, with a total of -5,378 transaotierie). PFM's approach is that of a boutique service- firth, with local presence and ceMmitment, PFM has state-wide coverage and experience, with more Florida finance professionals than any other municipal linanoe firm, and has a locally dedicated office within 15 minutes from -the Ceunty's downtown -offices. PFM has served as. Financial Advisor for Sarasota .County, Collier County; Orange County; City of Austin since 1992; and the City of Jacksonville for over 13 years, PFM has continuously maintained its commitment to municipal issuers b developing specific tools to service clients „ PFM's team is comprised. of advisors led by Sergio Masvidal and David Moore, who together have over 35 years of .experienoe, Mr, Masvidal is a Managing:.iiirector in the Miami office and has assumed an active role in providing technical financial support to the County, developing a distinot and comprehensive understanding of the Ceurity's needs and the components of service that best serve the needs of the County. Over the last 10 years Mr. Masvidal has been one of the Most active financial advisors in Florida in terms of both total par amounts (the stated principal amount of a security at original issue), and the nurnber of transactions completed. The firni's :proposal provided a well -developed and task appropriate approach, which ensures a close working relationship with the County,: to appropriately address the complexities and chal1enes that may occur due to the County's debt profile and strict reporting speeificatkins. Although PFM's price submitted is the second highest of the four firms that proposed, the firm's price is competitive for this market, and will be negotiated, Copies of the score -sheets are attached for each .0ornmittee .rnerrther, es well as a -composite score sheet, GELEQ110.N CMTE,EGA PROPOSERS COMPOSITE- SCORES RFO NO. 0008 FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES - General Segment EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS roposer% relevant eXrierience, 'qualifications, as a financial advisor, rankings, products, samples, and past-perfennance Relevant experience and qualifications of key personnel that.will be assigned to this project Relevant eXi3erience otassigned staff who will conceiv and develop the rating Agency presentations, reviewe and cbmInuiliques forthe General. Segment Proposes approach to rating.agency presentations Pi•oposelfs tecimical and im,house capability to provide technical supports computer modeling, financial analysis, econometric projections, price niodelingrand similar -services TOTAL TECHNICAL and PRICE POINT'S (Technica, r rowssabovey SFLE,CTIONFACTOR' cicrip of Total Teetinia-af Point VETERAN'S PAE.FEREIVCE (5% of Total Tectinkaf Points), TOTAL -POINTS Mgxlmiltn Maximp,ra Points Per -Member AS members)- . . ASSOGiateS,- Inc. 50. -• . 150 165 125:: 25, 15 76 . - '100 • • • SOO,. $5 - 3G 17. 53 PRINt NAME:. Dunlap & First Southwest PubliC Financial Company Management, Inc. 137- 140 41 42 2221 - 69 70: 447' Public Resources Advisory Group, inc. DATE: 155 114 41 67- 42412014 EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS RFQ NO. 00008 FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES - General Segment Frank Hinton (Finance) SELECTION PROPOSERS CRITERIA Maximum Points Dunlap & Associates, Inc. First Southwest Company Public Financial Management, Inc. Public Resources Advisory Group, Inc. Proposer's relevant experience, qualifications, as a financial advisor, rankings, products, samples, and past performance 30 20 27 28 25 Relevant experience and qualifications of key personnel that will be assigned to this project 25 22 20 21 19 Relevant experience of assigned staff who will conceive and develop the rating Agency presentations, reviews and communiques for the General Segment 10 7 9 9 8 Proposer's approach to rating agency presentations 5 4 5 6 5 Proposer's technical and in-house capability to provide technical support, computer modeling, financial analysis, econometric projections, price modeling, and similar services . — ...... 4,411.1.444,1014,433.41442, 15 .440414., 13 15 15 14 , TOTAL TECHNICAL POINTS -6744441,444,,,,—rnn -.0,,T.,341 44, . 66 76 78 71 .4 4,14, 4 44441,4444,14P, 4.1, 1, V4 ......r Proposer's proposed price- 444.-11.1. :15 13 13 14 13 TOTAL TECHNICAL ancl PRICE POINTS (Technical & Price rows above) 100 - 79 89 • 92 _ 84 , SELECTION FACTOR (10% of Total Technical Points) , 10% 0 . 0 0 . 0 VETERAN'S PREFERENCE (5% of Tata! Technical Points) - 0 0 0 0 _ TOTAL POINTS 100 79 89 92 84 4/24/2014 EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS RFQ NO. 00008 FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES - General Segment Arlesa Wood (Finance) SELECTION PROPOSERS CRITERIA Maximum Points Dunlap & Associates, Inc. First Southwest Company Public Financial Management, Inc. Public Resources Advisory Group, Inc. Proposer's relevant experience, qualifications, as a financial advisor,30 rankings, products, samples, and past performance 20 28 30 27 Relevant experience and qualifications of key personnel that will be assigned to this project 25 18 25 25 24 Relevant experience of assigned staff who will conceive and develop the rating Agency presentations, reviews and communiques for the General Segment 10 6 8 9 8 Proposer's approach to rating agency presentations 5 4 5 4 5 Proposer's technical and in-house capability to provide support, computer modeling, financial analysis, econometric projections, price modeling, and similar services technical . 15 10 14 15 12 TOTAL TECHNICAL POINTS 85 58 . 80 83 76 Proposer's proposed price -_ =15 :::. 10 11 14 12 TOTAL TECHNICAL and PRICE POINTS , (Technical & Price rows above) 100 68 91 97 88 SELECTION FACTOR (10% of Total Technical Points) .,,, 1 {l°ta .:.. 0 0 0 0 f*`*Y RRirJS.-.kNNF tUs4'r MXv,T.,„-. .--... ,,,-, ,fin ,9...v,g--1,Ws,,,,,. v N.wrnruw:a.--,,,,. VETERAN'S PREFERENCE (5% of Total Technical Points) --e0fnxF�'f3%'a:,,--vr,,21vv,.,,,,,,-.T 5C// ]Mf..-.m„ZaCtn'.yri*i5'�:..-',..r,"'",'u.,cu 0 -R:!GliU=raM,an%5: C':Vh»ba 0 �:J?:SAb�M_W.XS1P*wL^C%ti s 0 g.uT+1a `- YYisILNaRiT i35 0 TOTAL POINTS 100 68 91 97 88 EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS RFQ NO. 00008 FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES - General Segment Angela Boreland {MDFR) :SELECTION PROPOSERS CRITERIA , Maximum Points Dunlap & Associates, Inc. I;irst Southwest Company Pubic Financial Management, Inc. Public Resources Advisory Group, Inc. Proposer's relevant experience, qualifications, as a financial rankings, products, samples, and past performance advisor, 30 20 25 25 30 Relevant experience and qualifications of key personnel assigned to this project that will be25 15 23 22 25 Relevant experience of assigned staff who will conceive develop the rating Agency presentations, reviews and communiques for the General Segment and 10 5 7 7 8 Proposer's approach to rating agency presentations 5 3 3 3 4 Proposer's technical and in-house capability to provide technical support, computer modeling, financial analysis, econometric projections, price modeling, and similar services 15 ' 10 12 12 14 TOTAL TECHNICAL POINTS P�. - -85 53 70 69 81 Proposer's proposed price : -:15° :, : 15 10 12 14 TOTAL TECHNICAL and PRICE POINTS (Technical & Price rows above) 100 68 80 81 95 SELECTION FACTOR (10% of Total Technical Points) G. , ...,,,,.. :10% _ 0 0 0 , ...- ....,. F.. .,r .. ., .. S+¢•..a.vn,:.. r,s- .y. .. e..�_ _.....f.- ,.. , .,,. VETERAN'S PREFERENCE (5% of Total Technical Points) ,. r W. ..:. — 0 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS 100 68 80 .81 95 4/24/2014 Fl EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS RFQ NO. 00008 NANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES - General Segment David Ritchey (MDT} SELECTION PROPOSERS CRITERIA 1, . maximum Points Dunlap & Associates, Inc. First Southwest Company Public Financial Management, Inc. Public Resources Advisory Group, Inc, Proposer's relevant experience, qualifications, as a financial rankings, products, samples, and past performance advisor, 30 25 29 28 26 Relevant experience and qualifications of key personne assigned to this project that will be 25 20 25 25 24 Relevant experience of assigned staff who will conceive develop the rating Agency presentations, reviews and communiques for the General Segment and 10 7 9 8 9 Proposer's approach to rating agency presentations 5 3 5 5 5 Proposer's technical and in-house capability to provide support, computer modeling, financial analysis, econometric projections, price modeling, and similar services technical 15 10 15 14 13 TOTAL TECHNICAL POINTS 85 65 - 83 80 77 Proposer's proposed price ^'sw- `:.15 - : 10 15 14 uu. 12 — -, _L., TOTAL TECHNICAL and PRICE POINTS (Technical & Price rows above) 100 75 98 =.su . 94 89 y>b, 4..w•,,mnu .s>- - x ....., SELECTION FACTOR (1 D% of Total Technical Points) 0% ` 0 S.. 0 i..... 0 0 ��r a:s.iPa:+"e% r•Tra✓4A^�t�6'�.r_grfn +F�ue..r,,vst ✓,,M r4,i'ZUa.n,-.4FIrtwVTo^ifh VETERAN'S PREFERENCE (5% of Total Technical Points) 'S% 0 0 0 a --.,... TOTAL POINTS 100 75 98 94 89 4/242014 FI EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS RFQ NO.00008 NANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES - General Segment Leo Fernandez (School Board of Miami -Dade County) SELECTION PROPOSERS CRITERIA .... - maximum - Points Dunlap 8, Associates, Inc. First Southwest Company Public Financial Management, Inc. Public Resources Advisory Group, Inc. Proposer's relevant experience, qualifications, as a financial rankings, products, samples, and past performance advisor, 30 20 28 29 27 Relevant experience and qualifications of key personae assigned to this project that will be 25 20 23 24 22 Relevant experience of assigned staff who will conceive develop the rating Agency presentations, reviews and communiques for the General Segment and 10 5 8 9 8 Proposer's approach to rating agency presentations 5 3 4 4 4 Proposer's technical and in-house capability to provide support, computer modeling, financial analysis, econometric projections, price modeling, and similar services technical 15 10 13 14 '14 TOTAL TECHNICAL POINTS -V.>., _ -.:. 85 ',Z. 58 _. ,� 76 80 - 75 , � _ s.: Proposer's proposed price F,.:--.,, .. ::- :1 .:,:: �z. —:. �,. 14 Li . - 13 , ., .. 14 . 0 .... .._- . 13 TOTAL TECHNICAL and PRICE POINTS (Technical & Price rows above) 100 72 89 94 - 88 SELECTION FACTOR (10% of Total Technical Points) - 10°I° ' - 0 0 ".., 0 0 .:a, VETERANS PREFERENCE (5% of Total Technical Points) a« W. c ,,,,{:4 �uv, a .�°fa.. , . a :4,.c*� m... ., n a«s. t,.,�,...� -, an... , .svmyw-sa�rn�n ssg,.t x.�, 0 TOTAL POINTS 100 . 72 89 94 88 424/2D14