9.A.
City Council Meeting - FINAL
- Meeting Date:
- 06/04/2013
- From:
- Amy Hagin, Senior Procurement Specialist, Management Services
Information
TITLE:
Consideration and Approval of Contracts: Custodial Services Contracts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1) Acceptance of the proposals (listed below) for custodial services under RFP No. 2013-23.
- Accurate Building Maintenance, LLC [seven (7) facilities]
- Carnation Building Service, Inc. [eight (8) facilities]
- Twilight Janitorial Service, Inc. [four (4) facilities]
- Carnation Building Service, Inc. [eight (8) facilities]
- Twilight Janitorial Service, Inc. [four (4) facilities]
2) Provide the Purchasing Director the authority to add or delete facilities as necessary during the term of the agreement.
Policy Decision or Reason for Action:
To provide clean and presentable City facilities for use by both the public and City employees.
Financial Impact:
The expenditure will be charged to the appropriate division’s budget for each facility. The cost of supplies will be the responsibility of the City.
For the nineteen (19) facilities, the total annual contract amount is $350,812.08 between the three (3) recommended Proposers. The total annual contract amount is approximately 17% less than FY13 contracted costs due to staff making appropriate changes to the scope of work as well as cost savings with new vendors to the City. Please see the attached Proposal Cost Analysis for the cost by facility.
For the nineteen (19) facilities, the total annual contract amount is $350,812.08 between the three (3) recommended Proposers. The total annual contract amount is approximately 17% less than FY13 contracted costs due to staff making appropriate changes to the scope of work as well as cost savings with new vendors to the City. Please see the attached Proposal Cost Analysis for the cost by facility.
Connection to Council Goal:
Effective governance
Previous Council Decision on This:
None
Options and Alternatives:
• Approve the recommended action
• Approve each facility contract to the lowest responsive Proposer out of the top three (3) ranked Proposers
• Approve each facility contract to the lowest responsive Proposer out of the short-listed five (5) Proposers
• Internal custodial services with City staff
• Approve each facility contract to the lowest responsive Proposer out of the top three (3) ranked Proposers
• Approve each facility contract to the lowest responsive Proposer out of the short-listed five (5) Proposers
• Internal custodial services with City staff
Background/History:
The current custodial services agreements expire in June 2013. Proposals were received and evaluated for custodial services for an original twenty-one (21) facilities; of which an award for both the Prosecutor’s Building and City Warehouse will not be sought, resulting in a total of nineteen (19) facilities. The Prosecutor's building and the City Warehouse will receive service through internal staff and/or a light duty employee.
The proposal for custodial services outlines a clear and concise scope of work which identifies the frequencies, service levels and functions for each facility. In the Request for Proposal, the evaluation criteria utilized included: presented approach, qualifications and experience, references and past performance, and pricing structure/submittals. Also, please note that not all proposers were required to provide a cost at all facilities, as certain aspects of a facility, for example size or scope of work, may not meet the proposer’s ability to provide the best service to the City.
There were a total of eight (8) proposals received for custodial services. The evaluation team reviewed the proposals and was able to short-list to five (5) Proposers. The five (5) Proposers were invited to a formal interview process with the Evaluation Committee where an established set of questions and new evaluation criteria were scored. The evaluation criteria included: pricing – best and final offer, training and implementation, references, equipment, and sustainable measures. The scoring tabulation from the interview process resulted in three (3) top Proposers: Accurate Building Maintenance, LLC, Carnation Building Service, Inc., and Twilight Janitorial Service, Inc.
The proposal for custodial services outlines a clear and concise scope of work which identifies the frequencies, service levels and functions for each facility. In the Request for Proposal, the evaluation criteria utilized included: presented approach, qualifications and experience, references and past performance, and pricing structure/submittals. Also, please note that not all proposers were required to provide a cost at all facilities, as certain aspects of a facility, for example size or scope of work, may not meet the proposer’s ability to provide the best service to the City.
There were a total of eight (8) proposals received for custodial services. The evaluation team reviewed the proposals and was able to short-list to five (5) Proposers. The five (5) Proposers were invited to a formal interview process with the Evaluation Committee where an established set of questions and new evaluation criteria were scored. The evaluation criteria included: pricing – best and final offer, training and implementation, references, equipment, and sustainable measures. The scoring tabulation from the interview process resulted in three (3) top Proposers: Accurate Building Maintenance, LLC, Carnation Building Service, Inc., and Twilight Janitorial Service, Inc.
Key Considerations:
The contract type is a firm-fixed fee with an initial three (3) year term. Upon mutual agreement between the City and the Vendor, the agreement may be renewed for a maximum of two (2) additional one (1) year terms. Price adjustments shall be based upon an increase in service level at the time of the offer and can be shown to directly affect the price of the item concerned. Purchasing Division will determine whether the requested price adjustment is in the best interest of the City.
Accurate Building Maintenance, LLC was founded in 1994 with offices in Prescott, Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada. The proposer expanded into northern Arizona in 2011, obtaining twenty-three (23) facilities with the City of Cottonwood. Through the RFP and interview processes, the Proposer described their best tool, a website named CleanTelligent, which provides the City a cradle to grave interactive information tool to enhance team communication and provide a proactive approach to customer service and emergency situations. Accurate Building Maintenance, LLC, scored the highest with a score of 1820 out of a possible 2000 points.
Carnation Building Service, Inc. was founded in 1991 with providing custodial services regionally in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah with many government clients. Carnation Building Services, Inc. scored the highest as well through the RFP and interview processes with a score of 1820 points out of a possible 2000. The highlights from the interview process were the Proposer’s attention to a team-cleaning concept to reduce costs for the customer, and the extensive training for each of their employees.
Twilight Janitorial Service, Inc. was founded in 2004 and has been performing custodial services for the City since 2008 at two (2) of our facilities. The Proposer’s performance has been great for the City, and the evaluation team provided a score that ranked Twilight Janitorial Services, Inc. as our third highest Proposer with a score of 1460 points out of a possible 2000. The Proposer embodies a training and safety program that was impressive to the evaluation committee as well as glowing references.
The proposal has an ‘additions/deletions of service clause’ which allows for addition or deletion of facilities. The clause reads:
Additional areas (sections or buildings) may be added from time to time. If this occurs, the Proposer will be requested to submit a negotiable maintenance cost quote for the additions. Upon approval of the City Council and authorization by the Purchasing Director such additions will be added to and become a part of the contract through properly executed forms. Should a section or building be deleted, payment to the Proposer will be reduced proportionally, to the amount of service reduced in accordance with the PROPOSAL price.
Purchasing is recommending authorization to add or delete services as necessary due to the cancellation or adjustment of services without presenting each change to Council upon occurrence. Council will be notified of the change during the recommendation to extend this service on an annual basis.
With the assistance of the facility site managers, a scope of work that allows for strict guidelines for the cleaning of each facility was created. The creation of “As Requested” types of services was created, such as, window cleaning and carpet shampooing, in an effort to establish a cost but to also provide those services on an as needed basis only. In the past, facilities were on a quarterly or semi-annual schedule for such services.
Each facility site manager will be providing direct day-to-day communication with the custodial service Vendor with the possibility that quarterly reviews may occur between the facility site manager, Facility Maintenance Superintendent, Purchasing and the vendor as needed and upon request by City staff.
Facilities recommends an award to multiple vendors to minimize risk should a vendor have performance issues.
The Purchasing Division and Sustainability and Environmental Management Section have worked together to require, as per the scope of work for each facility, the usage of “green seal” compliance products and recovering 100% of recyclable materials by ensuring that trash and recycling are not commingled and are properly placed in their respective dumpster for collection.
Accurate Building Maintenance, LLC was founded in 1994 with offices in Prescott, Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada. The proposer expanded into northern Arizona in 2011, obtaining twenty-three (23) facilities with the City of Cottonwood. Through the RFP and interview processes, the Proposer described their best tool, a website named CleanTelligent, which provides the City a cradle to grave interactive information tool to enhance team communication and provide a proactive approach to customer service and emergency situations. Accurate Building Maintenance, LLC, scored the highest with a score of 1820 out of a possible 2000 points.
Carnation Building Service, Inc. was founded in 1991 with providing custodial services regionally in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah with many government clients. Carnation Building Services, Inc. scored the highest as well through the RFP and interview processes with a score of 1820 points out of a possible 2000. The highlights from the interview process were the Proposer’s attention to a team-cleaning concept to reduce costs for the customer, and the extensive training for each of their employees.
Twilight Janitorial Service, Inc. was founded in 2004 and has been performing custodial services for the City since 2008 at two (2) of our facilities. The Proposer’s performance has been great for the City, and the evaluation team provided a score that ranked Twilight Janitorial Services, Inc. as our third highest Proposer with a score of 1460 points out of a possible 2000. The Proposer embodies a training and safety program that was impressive to the evaluation committee as well as glowing references.
The proposal has an ‘additions/deletions of service clause’ which allows for addition or deletion of facilities. The clause reads:
Additional areas (sections or buildings) may be added from time to time. If this occurs, the Proposer will be requested to submit a negotiable maintenance cost quote for the additions. Upon approval of the City Council and authorization by the Purchasing Director such additions will be added to and become a part of the contract through properly executed forms. Should a section or building be deleted, payment to the Proposer will be reduced proportionally, to the amount of service reduced in accordance with the PROPOSAL price.
Purchasing is recommending authorization to add or delete services as necessary due to the cancellation or adjustment of services without presenting each change to Council upon occurrence. Council will be notified of the change during the recommendation to extend this service on an annual basis.
With the assistance of the facility site managers, a scope of work that allows for strict guidelines for the cleaning of each facility was created. The creation of “As Requested” types of services was created, such as, window cleaning and carpet shampooing, in an effort to establish a cost but to also provide those services on an as needed basis only. In the past, facilities were on a quarterly or semi-annual schedule for such services.
Each facility site manager will be providing direct day-to-day communication with the custodial service Vendor with the possibility that quarterly reviews may occur between the facility site manager, Facility Maintenance Superintendent, Purchasing and the vendor as needed and upon request by City staff.
Facilities recommends an award to multiple vendors to minimize risk should a vendor have performance issues.
The Purchasing Division and Sustainability and Environmental Management Section have worked together to require, as per the scope of work for each facility, the usage of “green seal” compliance products and recovering 100% of recyclable materials by ensuring that trash and recycling are not commingled and are properly placed in their respective dumpster for collection.
Expanded Financial Considerations:
The City evaluated five (5) areas including:
Best and Final Offer – 40%
Training and Implementation – 30%
References and Past Performance – 10%
Equipment Utilized – 10%
Sustainable Measures – 10%
Out of the nineteen (19) facilities, eleven (11) facilities are recommended approval to the Proposer with the lowest annual cost to the City. The other eight (8) facilities are not the lowest annual cost; however, the annual amount for each of the eight (8) facilities is under the FY14 budget and utilizing one of the top-evaluated proposers.
For the City Hall facility, the recommended approval amount is $643.80 higher (1.73% higher) annually than another Proposer. The Evaluation Committee along with staff have requested to use the marginally higher Proposer based upon the presented training, implementation proposal, and communication tools (electronic software) for such a high visibility facility. The recommended approval amount is under budget.
For the Library facility, the recommended approval amount is $2,360.76 higher (6.73% higher) annually than another Proposer. Similarly, for the East Library facility, the recommended approval amount is $507.20 higher (3.69%) than another Proposer. The Evaluation Committee along with staff have recommended to use the slightly higher Proposer based upon the added-value communication tool, CleanTelligent, previously mentioned. The communication tool provides a 30-minute or less response to an inquiry which is very desirable to the public’s high usage of the facilities. For example, recently the toddler space within the Library had to be vacated due to an emergency clean-up. The clean-up remediation consumed a much longer time period than anticipated, thus forcing the facility to reschedule numerous events. With a 30-minute or less response time with the recommended Proposer, the facility could have continued on with their normal scheduled events with an emergency clean-up as experienced. The recommended approval amount is under budget.
For the Airport facility, the recommended approval amount is $652.20 higher (1.15% higher) annually than the Proposer that was received the lowest overall score through the RFP process. The Evaluation Committee along with staff have recommended to use the marginally higher Proposer based upon the added-value communication tool (CleanTelligent), and the presented approach to training and implementation for a highly used public facility. The recommended approval amount is under budget.
For the Aquaplex facility, the recommended approval amount is $2,851.20 higher (4.38% higher) annually than the fourth rated Proposer through the RFP process. The Evaluation Committee along with staff have recommended to use the marginally higher Proposer based upon the added-value communication tool (CleanTelligent), and the presented approach to training and implementation for a highly used public facility. The recommended approval amount is under budget.
For the NACET Business Incubator facility, the recommended approval amount is $1,920.00 higher (25.35% higher) annually than the fourth rated Proposer through the RFP process. The Evaluation Committee along with staff have recommended to use the higher Proposer based upon the added-value communication tool (CleanTelligent), and the presented approach to training and implementation for a highly used public facility. The recommended approval amount is under budget.
For Municipal Court facility, the recommended approval amount is $4,856.00 higher (36.90% higher) annually than the fourth rated Proposer through the RFP process. The Evaluation Committee along with staff have recommended to use the higher Proposer based upon the added-value communication tool (CleanTelligent), and the presented approach to training and implementation for a highly used public facility. The recommended approval amount is under budget.
For the USGS #6 facility, the recommended approval amount is $1,284.00 higher (4.71% higher) than the fourth rated proposer through the RFP process. The Evaluation Committee and USGS staff have recommended using the marginally higher Proposer based upon logistics of using the same Proposer recommended for the other three (3) USGS facilities as well as one of the top ranked proposers. The recommendation approval amount is under budget.
For the Streets Section facility, the recommended approval amount is $115.00 higher (3.30% higher) than another Proposer. The Evaluation Committee and staff have recommended using the marginally higher Proposer based upon logistics of using the same Proposer for the facility adjacent to the Streets Section (Environmental Services). The recommended approval amount is under budget.
Best and Final Offer – 40%
Training and Implementation – 30%
References and Past Performance – 10%
Equipment Utilized – 10%
Sustainable Measures – 10%
Out of the nineteen (19) facilities, eleven (11) facilities are recommended approval to the Proposer with the lowest annual cost to the City. The other eight (8) facilities are not the lowest annual cost; however, the annual amount for each of the eight (8) facilities is under the FY14 budget and utilizing one of the top-evaluated proposers.
For the City Hall facility, the recommended approval amount is $643.80 higher (1.73% higher) annually than another Proposer. The Evaluation Committee along with staff have requested to use the marginally higher Proposer based upon the presented training, implementation proposal, and communication tools (electronic software) for such a high visibility facility. The recommended approval amount is under budget.
For the Library facility, the recommended approval amount is $2,360.76 higher (6.73% higher) annually than another Proposer. Similarly, for the East Library facility, the recommended approval amount is $507.20 higher (3.69%) than another Proposer. The Evaluation Committee along with staff have recommended to use the slightly higher Proposer based upon the added-value communication tool, CleanTelligent, previously mentioned. The communication tool provides a 30-minute or less response to an inquiry which is very desirable to the public’s high usage of the facilities. For example, recently the toddler space within the Library had to be vacated due to an emergency clean-up. The clean-up remediation consumed a much longer time period than anticipated, thus forcing the facility to reschedule numerous events. With a 30-minute or less response time with the recommended Proposer, the facility could have continued on with their normal scheduled events with an emergency clean-up as experienced. The recommended approval amount is under budget.
For the Airport facility, the recommended approval amount is $652.20 higher (1.15% higher) annually than the Proposer that was received the lowest overall score through the RFP process. The Evaluation Committee along with staff have recommended to use the marginally higher Proposer based upon the added-value communication tool (CleanTelligent), and the presented approach to training and implementation for a highly used public facility. The recommended approval amount is under budget.
For the Aquaplex facility, the recommended approval amount is $2,851.20 higher (4.38% higher) annually than the fourth rated Proposer through the RFP process. The Evaluation Committee along with staff have recommended to use the marginally higher Proposer based upon the added-value communication tool (CleanTelligent), and the presented approach to training and implementation for a highly used public facility. The recommended approval amount is under budget.
For the NACET Business Incubator facility, the recommended approval amount is $1,920.00 higher (25.35% higher) annually than the fourth rated Proposer through the RFP process. The Evaluation Committee along with staff have recommended to use the higher Proposer based upon the added-value communication tool (CleanTelligent), and the presented approach to training and implementation for a highly used public facility. The recommended approval amount is under budget.
For Municipal Court facility, the recommended approval amount is $4,856.00 higher (36.90% higher) annually than the fourth rated Proposer through the RFP process. The Evaluation Committee along with staff have recommended to use the higher Proposer based upon the added-value communication tool (CleanTelligent), and the presented approach to training and implementation for a highly used public facility. The recommended approval amount is under budget.
For the USGS #6 facility, the recommended approval amount is $1,284.00 higher (4.71% higher) than the fourth rated proposer through the RFP process. The Evaluation Committee and USGS staff have recommended using the marginally higher Proposer based upon logistics of using the same Proposer recommended for the other three (3) USGS facilities as well as one of the top ranked proposers. The recommendation approval amount is under budget.
For the Streets Section facility, the recommended approval amount is $115.00 higher (3.30% higher) than another Proposer. The Evaluation Committee and staff have recommended using the marginally higher Proposer based upon logistics of using the same Proposer for the facility adjacent to the Streets Section (Environmental Services). The recommended approval amount is under budget.
Community Benefits and Considerations:
Clean and presentable facilities for use by the public and City employees.
Community Involvement:
Inform
Expanded Options and Alternatives:
• Approve the recommended action
• Approve each facility to the lowest annual cost Proposer out of the three (3) top ranked Proposers which would include a recommendation change to City Hall, Library, and East Library facilities
• Approve each facility to the lowest annual cost Proposer out of the five (5) short-listed Proposers which would include a recommendation change to City Hall, Library, East Library, Airport, Aquaplex, NACET Business Incubator, Municipal Court, USGS #6, and Streets Division.
• Reject all proposals and perform an examination of providing custodial services with internal City staff. Additional time would be needed to thoroughly perform the analysis for each facility.
• Approve each facility to the lowest annual cost Proposer out of the three (3) top ranked Proposers which would include a recommendation change to City Hall, Library, and East Library facilities
• Approve each facility to the lowest annual cost Proposer out of the five (5) short-listed Proposers which would include a recommendation change to City Hall, Library, East Library, Airport, Aquaplex, NACET Business Incubator, Municipal Court, USGS #6, and Streets Division.
• Reject all proposals and perform an examination of providing custodial services with internal City staff. Additional time would be needed to thoroughly perform the analysis for each facility.