Administrative Services Committee Meeting

Administrative Services Committee Commission Chamber- 8/27/2012- 1:05 PM Meeting ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1. Motion to approve Year 2013 Action Plan for Community Attachments Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program (HOPWA) Program. 2. Approve award of a contract to URS Corporation to update the Attachments Advance Transportation Management System (ATMS) Master Plan. 3. An Ordinance to amend the Augusta, Ga. Code Article Attachments One, Chapter Ten, Section 1-10-52 relating to the procurement source selection methods and contract awards related to sealed proposal evaluation and selection; to establish policies, procedures and guidelines regarding the procurement source selection process; to repeal all Code sections and ordinances and parts of Code sections and ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other purposes provided herein. 4. Discuss amending Years 2009 through 2012 Action Plans to re- Attachments program $52,759.50 and revising the Scope of Work in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds (30 day comment period required). 5. Motion to approve the minutes of the Administrative Services Attachments Committee held on August 13, 2012. 6. Approve and allow the Augusta Housing and Community Attachments Development Department (AHCDD) to proceed with the Auburn @ Barton Chapel Road, a rental housing project consisting of 23 attached 2BR, 3BR and 4BR single family rental housing units for households considered low to moderate income via the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) and  Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3) program guideline standards. 7. Motion to adopt Equal Employment Opportunity Plan Attachments (EEOP) for Augusta, Georgia. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee August 13, 2012- deferred back to committee from the Commission's August 21, 2012 meeting) 8. Consider written response from the Director of Housing & Attachments Development Department regarding the Pine Street Development and other related activities as presented in the June 18th Questionnaire. www.augustaga.gov  Administrative Services Committee Meeting 8/27/2012 1:05 PM 2013 Action Plan Department: Housing & Community Development Caption: Motion to approve Year 2013 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program (HOPWA) Program. Background: In order to fulfill statutory and regulatory requirements mandated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development with regard to the 2013 Action Plan, the City of Augusta is required to make available for public comment the 2013 Action Plan that provides the jurisdiction an opportunity to review the City of Augusta, Housing and Community Development Department’s local strategy to address needs in the areas of community development, economic development, housing and homelessness. This proposal includes an Action Plan for 2012 with a budget that includes anticipated funding allocations for the Community Development Block Grant ($1,723,227), HOME ($766,812), ESG ($176,697) and HOPWA ($425,840) plus CDBG Program Income from loan repayments of $150,000 and HOME loan repayments of $235,000. Analysis: If supported by the Augusta City Commission, the Housing and Community Development Department will be able to fund these projects in accordance with the submission of the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Financial Impact: If approved by the City Commission, the Plan will continue to provide funding of needed services and housing projects for low- to moderate-income households throughout the City of Augusta. Alternatives: None Recommended. Recommendation: Accept the 2013 Action Plan by resolution Cover Memo Item # 1 Funds are Available in the Following NA Accounts: REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Finance. Law. Administrator. Clerk of Commission Cover Memo Item # 1 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 Item # 1 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 Item # 1  Administrative Services Committee Meeting 8/27/2012 1:05 PM Advanced Transportation Management System Master Plan Update Department: Planning and Development Caption: Approve award of a contract to URS Corporation to update the Advance Transportation Management System (ATMS) Master Plan. Background: The Planning and Development Department provides transportation planning services for the Augusta Regional Transportation Study (ARTS) as mandated by federal regulations. One responsibility is to periodically update transportation planning studies. An Advance Transportation Systems Master Plan (ATMS), more commonly referred to as an Intelligent Transportation System Plan (ITS), was first completed in 2002. An update of the ATMS plan is necessary in order to account for recent improvements in traffic management in the Augusta area and to take advantage of newer ITS technologies. When applied to transportation systems ITS technologies improve the safety, efficiency and performance of roads, highways, vehicles and transit and rail systems. Analysis: An RFQ / RFP process was used to procure consultant services for this project. Six (6) firms responded to the RFQ and four (4) were short-listed and asked to respond to the RFP. The consultant selection committee reviewed the proposals and interviewed each of the firms. The committee ranked URS Corporation highest based on the firm’s proposed approach to the project, the training and experience of their personnel and the results of their interview / presentation. Financial Impact: The georgia Department of Transportation will reimburse the city for eighty percent (80%) of the eligible costs of the plan update. The twenty percent (20%) local match is already included in the budget for the Planning and Development Department. Alternatives: None recommended Cover Memo Recommendation: Approve award of a contract to URS Corporation in an amount Item # 2  not to exceed $ 146,433.80 to complete the ATMS Master Plan update. Funds are Available in the Following Funds Available in account # 220-01-6309 / 52-12999 Accounts: REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Finance. Procurement. Law. Administrator. Clerk of Commission Cover Memo Item # 2 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 Item # 2 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 Item # 2 Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 Item # 2 Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 Item # 2 Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 Item # 2 Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 Item # 2 Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 Item # 2 Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 Item # 2 Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 Item # 2 Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 Item # 2  Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 Request for Qualifications Request for Qualifications will be received at this office until Wednesday, April 18, 2012 @ 3:00 p.m. for furnishing: RFQ Item #12-137 Advanced Transportation Management System for Planning and Development Department RFQs will be received by: The Augusta Commission hereinafter referred to as the OWNER at the offices of: Geri A. Sams, Director Augusta Procurement Department 530 Greene Street - Room 605 Augusta, Georgia 30901 RFQ documents may be viewed on the Augusta Georgia web site under the Procurement Department ARCbid. RFQ documents may be obtained at the office of the Augusta, GA Procurement Department, 530 Greene Street – Room 605, Augusta, GA 30901. All questions must be submitted in writing by fax to 706 821-2811 or by email to procbidandcontract@augustaga.gov to the office of the Procurement Department by Wednesday, March 21, 2012 @ 5:00 P.M. No bid will be accepted by fax, all must be received by mail or hand delivered. No RFQ may be withdrawn for a period of 90 days after time has been called on the date of opening. Invitation for bids and specifications. An invitation for bids shall be issued by the Procurement Office and shall include specifications prepared in accordance with Article 4 (Product Specifications), and all contractual terms and conditions, applicable to the procurement. All specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid including, but not limited to, the number of copies needed, the timing of the submission, the required financial data, and any other requirements designated by the Procurement Department are considered material conditions of the bid which are not waiveable or modifiable by the Procurement Director. All requests to waive or modify any such material condition shall be submitted through the Procurement Director to the appropriate committee of the Augusta, Georgia Commission for approval by the Augusta, Georgia Commission. Please mark RFQ number on the outside of the envelope. Bidders are cautioned that acquisition of RFQ documents through any source other than the office of the Procurement Department is not advisable. Acquisition of RFQ documents from unauthorized sources places the bidder at the risk of receiving incomplete or inaccurate information upon which to base his qualifications. GERI A. SAMS, Procurement Director Publish: Augusta Chronicle February 23, March 1, 8, 15, 2012 Metro Courier February 29, 2012 cc: Tameka Allen Deputy Administrator George Patty Planning & Development Marya Moultrie Planning & Development Revised: 8/15/2011 Item # 2  Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 RFQ Item #12-137 Advanced Transportation Management System for Augusta, Georgia - Planning and Development Department RFQ Due: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 @ 3:00 p.m. VENDORS Attachment B E-Verify # Original 10 Copies CDM Smith Invalid E-Verify 1301 Gervais Street Columbia, SC 29202-0092 Yes Num/Non- Yes Yes Compliant URS Corporation 1000 Abernathy Road NE Suite 900 Atlanta, GA 30328 Yes 66814 Yes Yes Cranston Engineering Group 452 Ellis Street Augusta, GA 30903-2546 BP Barber 101 Research Drive Columbia, SC 29202-1116 AECOM One Midtown Plaza 1360 Peachtree Street, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Atkins 1600 RiverEdge Parkway NW Suite 600 Yes 58042 Yes Yes Atlanta, GA 30328-4612 POND Company 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 600 Norcross, GA 30092 W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc. 1005 Broad Street, Suite 200 Augusta, GA 30901 World Fiber Technologies 4070 Nine McFarland Drive Alpharetta, Georgia 30004 LAI Engineering 1800 Parkway Place, Suite 720 Marietta, Georgia 30067 Kimley-Horn & Associates Invalid Bus Lic 817 W Peachtree St NW, Suite 601 Num/Non- 412062 Yes Yes Atlanta, GA 30308 Compliant Cambridge Systematics 100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400 Yes 153690 Yes Yes Cambridge, MA 02140 Gresham, Smith and Partners 2325 Lakeview Pkway., Suite 400 Yes 52704 Yes Yes Alpharetta, GA 30009-7940 Item # 2 Page 1 of 1 Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 Item # 2 Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 Item # 2 Attachment number 6 \nPage 2 Item # 2 Attachment number 6 \nPage 3 Item # 2 Attachment number 6 \nPage 4 Item # 2 Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 Item # 2 Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 Item # 2 Attachment number 7 \nPage 3 Item # 2 Attachment number 7 \nPage 4 Item # 2 Attachment number 7 \nPage 5 Item # 2 Attachment number 7 \nPage 6 Item # 2  Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 Phase II - Detail Cumulative Evaluation Sheet RFP Item #12-137 Advanced Transportation Management System for Augusta, Georgia - Planning and Development Department Tuesday, June 12, 2012 Gresham, Smith and Atkins URS Corporation Cambridge Systematics Partners 1600 RiverEdge Parkway 1000 Abernathy Road NE 100 CambridgePark 2325 Lakeview Pkway., PTS NW Suite 900 Drive, Suite 400 Suite 400 Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30328 Cambridge, MA 02140 Alpharetta, GA 30009- Evaluation Criteria Atlanta, GA 30328-4612 7940 Relevant Qualifications & Experience of the Firm / Team • Experience in Advanced Transportation Management Systems Planning 7 6.8 5.2 5.7 6.7 • Project manager’s relevant experience 7 6.7 5.3 5.8 6.7 • Team worked together on similar projects 7 6.5 5.0 5.3 6.5 • Quality of references 7 6.8 6.2 6.5 6.5 Subtotal 28 26.8 21.7 23.3 26.3 Technical Knowledge and Experience • Regional ATMS planning and knowledge of National ITS Architecture guidelines 8 7.5 5.7 6.2 7.5 • Knowledge of available communication technologies, ITS Market Packages and specifications 6 5.8 4.2 4.8 5.8 • Facilities design and cost estimates 6 5.7 4.5 5.2 5.8 • Operations and maintenance requirements and cost estimates 6 5.7 4.8 5.2 5.5 • Public and Stakeholder Involvement 6 5.3 4.5 4.7 5.5 Subtotal 32 30.0 23.7 26.0 30.2 6 • Quality and completeness of approach to project 7 6.5 4.8 5.5 6.2 • Meets project objectives 7 6.8 4.8 5.7 6.7 • Adequacy of proposed public involvement 7 6.5 4.8 5.7 6.5 • Adequacy of proposed staff resources 7 6.7 4.8 5.7 6.8 Subtotal 28 26.5 19.3 22.5 26.2 Quality of Presentation and Associated Documents • Clarity of presentation and associated documents 4 3.8 2.8 3.3 3.8 • Completeness of presentation and associated documents 4 3.8 2.8 3.2 4.0 • Response to questions 4 3.8 3.2 3.5 3.8 Subtotal 12 11.5 8.8 10.0 11.7 TOTAL 100 94.8 73.5 81.8 94.3 Comments: Evaluator # 1 Item # 2  Administrative Services Committee Meeting 8/27/2012 1:05 PM An Ordinance to amend Augusta, Ga. Code Section 1-10-52 relating to sealed proposal evaluation and selection; to repeal all inconsistent Ordinances; to provide an effective date Department: Commissioner Guilfoyle Caption: An Ordinance to amend the Augusta, Ga. Code Article One, Chapter Ten, Section 1-10-52 relating to the procurement source selection methods and contract awards related to sealed proposal evaluation and selection; to establish policies, procedures and guidelines regarding the procurement source selection process; to repeal all Code sections and ordinances and parts of Code sections and ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other purposes provided herein. Background: Currently, the Augusta, GA Code does not provide specific guidance regarding the Commissions' views on the relative importance of price as related to the procurement method known as sealed proposal evaluation and selection. Analysis: The Commission is to consider whether price should play a prominent role in the sealed proposal evaluation and selection method as related to the other evaluation factors. This proposed amendment will make price at least 50% of the total evaluation score on most sealed proposals. Commission approval will be required to allow price to be less than 50% of the total evaluation score. Financial Impact: N/A Alternatives: Decline to amend this Code Section at this time. Recommendation: N/A Funds are Available in the Following N/A Accounts: Cover Memo Item # 3 REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Finance. Law. Administrator. Clerk of Commission Cover Memo Item # 3  Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE AUGUSTA, GA CODE ARTICLE ONE, CHAPTER TEN, SECTION 1-10-52 RELATING TO THE PROCUREMENT SOURCE SELECTION METHODS AND CONTRACT AWARDS RELATED TO SEALED PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION; TO ESTABLISH POLICIES, PROCUDURES AND GUIDELINES REGARDING THE PROCUREMENT SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS; TO REPEAL ALL CODE SECTIONS AND ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF CODE SECTIONS AND ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR THE OTHER PURPOSES PROVIDED HEREIN. WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Augusta, Georgia Commission to update Code provisions relating to the procurement source selection methods and contract awards related to sealed proposal evaluation and selection so as to provide further guidelines regarding the relative importance of price and other evaluation factors that will be used in the context of proposal evaluation and contract award; WHEREAS, the Commission believes that price should play a prominent role in the sealed proposal evaluation and selection method as related to the other evaluation factors; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the Augusta, Georgia Commission recommends amending Article One, Chapter Ten, Section. 1-10-52 of the AUGUSTA, GA CODE. THE AUGUSTA, GEORGIA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ordains as follows: SECTION 1. AUGUSTA, GA. CODE Sec. 1-10-52 Sealed Proposals as set forth in the AUGUSTA, GA. CODE, as amended December 20, 2011 by Ord. No. 7314, is hereby amended by striking this section in its entirety as set forth in “Exhibit A” hereto and inserting in lieu thereof new Code Sec. 1-10-52 as set forth in “Exhibit B” hereto. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption in accordance with applicable laws. SECTION 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Adopted this _____ day of August, 2012. ___________________________ David S. Copenhaver As its Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission Seal: Item # 3  Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 CERTIFICATION The undersigned Clerk of Commission, Lena J. Bonner, hereby certifies that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Augusta, Georgia Commission on_________________, 2012 and that such Ordinance has not been modified or rescinded as of the date hereof and the undersigned further certifies that attached hereto is a true copy of the Ordinance which was approved and adopted in the foregoing meeting(s). ______________________________ Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission Published in the Augusta Chronicle. Date: First Reading Second Reading Item # 3  Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 Exhibit A STRIKE: Sec. 1-10-52. Sealed proposals. (a) Conditions for use. In accordance with O.C.G.A. § 36-91-21(c)(1)(C), the competitive sealed proposals method may be utilized when it is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to Augusta, Georgia, taking into consideration the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. The evaluation factors in the request for proposals shall be the basis on which the award decision is made when the sealed proposal method is used. Augusta, Georgia is not restricted from using alternative procurement methods for obtaining the best value on any procurement, such as Construction Management at Risk, Design/Build, etc. (b) Request for proposals. Competitive sealed proposals shall be solicited through a request for proposals (RFP). (c) Public notice. Adequate public notice of the request for proposals shall be given in the same manner as provided in section 1-10- 50(c)(Public Notice and Bidder's List); provided the normal period of time between notice and receipt of proposals minimally shall be fifteen (15) calendar days. (d) Pre-proposal conference. A pre-proposal conference may be scheduled at least five (5) days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals, and notice shall be handled in a manner similar to section 1-10-50(c)-Public Notice and Bidder's List. No information provided at such pre-proposal conference shall be binding upon Augusta, Georgia unless provided in writing to all offerors. (e) Receipt of proposals. Proposals will be received at the time and place designated in the request for proposals, complete with bidder qualification and technical information. No late proposals shall be accepted. Price information shall be separated from the proposal in a sealed envelope and opened only after the proposals have been reviewed and ranked. The names of the offerors will be identified at the proposal acceptance; however, no proposal will be handled so as to permit disclosure of the detailed contents of the response until after award of contract. A record of all responses shall be prepared and maintained for the files and audit purposes. (f) Public inspection. The responses will be open for public inspection only Item #3  Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 after contract award. Proprietary or confidential information marked as such in each proposal will not be disclosed without written consent of the offeror. (g) Evaluation and selection. The request for proposals shall state the relative importance of price and other evaluation factors that will be used in the context of proposal evaluation and contract award. (Pricing proposals will not be opened until the proposals have been reviewed and ranked). Such evaluation factors may include, but not be limited to: (1) The ability, capacity, and skill of the offeror to perform the contract or provide the services required; (2) The capability of the offeror to perform the contract or provide the service promptly or within the time specified, without delay or interference; (3) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and efficiency of the offeror; (4) The quality of performance on previous contracts; (5) The previous and existing compliance by the offeror with laws and ordinances relating to the contract or services; (6) The sufficiency of the financial resources of the offeror relating to his ability to perform the contract; (7) The quality, availability, and adaptability of the supplies or services to the particular use required; and (8) Price. (h) Selection committee. A selection committee, minimally consisting of representatives of the procurement office, the using agency, and the Administrator's office or his designee shall convene for the purpose of evaluating the proposals. (i) Preliminary negotiations. Discussions with the offerors and technical revisions to the proposals may occur. Discussions may be conducted with the responsible offerors who submit proposals for the purpose of clarification and to assure full understanding of, and conformance to, the Item # 3 solicitation requirements. Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment  Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 with respect to any opportunity for discussions and revision of proposals and such revisions may be permitted after submission and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining best and final offers. In conducting discussions, there shall be no disclosure of information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors. (j) From the date proposals are received by the Procurement Director through the date of contract award, no offeror shall make any substitutions, deletions, additions or other changes in the configuration or structure of the offeror’s teams or members of the offeror’s team. (k) Final negotiations and letting the contract. The Committee shall rank the technical proposals, open and consider the pricing proposals submitted by each offeror. Award shall be made or recommended for award through the Augusta, Georgia Administrator, to the most responsible and responsive offeror whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to Augusta, Georgia, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. No other factors or criteria shall be used in the evaluation. The contract file shall contain a written report of the basis on which the award is made/recommended. The contract shall be awarded or let in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Section and the other applicable sections of this chapter. Item # 3  Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 Exhibit B REPLACE WITH: Sec. 1-10-52. Sealed proposals. (a) Conditions for use. In accordance with O.C.G.A. § 36-91-21(c)(1)(C), the competitive sealed proposals method may be utilized when it is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to Augusta, Georgia, taking into consideration the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. The evaluation factors in the request for proposals shall be the basis on which the award decision is made when the sealed proposal method is used. Augusta, Georgia is not restricted from using alternative procurement methods for obtaining the best value on any procurement, such as Construction Management at Risk, Design/Build, etc. (b) Request for proposals. Competitive sealed proposals shall be solicited through a request for proposals (RFP). (c) Public notice. Adequate public notice of the request for proposals shall be given in the same manner as provided in section 1-10- 50(c)(Public Notice and Bidder's List); provided the normal period of time between notice and receipt of proposals minimally shall be fifteen (15) calendar days. (d) Pre-proposal conference. A pre-proposal conference may be scheduled at least five (5) days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals, and notice shall be handled in a manner similar to section 1-10-50(c)-Public Notice and Bidder's List. No information provided at such pre-proposal conference shall be binding upon Augusta, Georgia unless provided in writing to all offerors. (e) Receipt of proposals. Proposals will be received at the time and place designated in the request for proposals, complete with bidder qualification and technical information. No late proposals shall be accepted. Price information shall be separated from the proposal in a sealed envelope and opened only after the proposals have been reviewed and ranked. The names of the offerors will be identified at the proposal acceptance; however, no proposal will be handled so as to permit disclosure of the detailed contents of the response until after award of contract. A record of all responses shall be prepared and maintained for the files and audit purposes. (f) Public inspection. The responses will be open for public inspection only Item #3  Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 after contract award. Proprietary or confidential information marked as such in each proposal will not be disclosed without written consent of the offeror. (g) Evaluation and selection. The request for proposals shall state the relative importance of price and other evaluation factors that will be used in the context of proposal evaluation and contract award. Price shall constitute a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the total evaluation score on all request for proposals (except as otherwise provided in this Section or by conditions contained in federal or state grants). Prior Commission approval shall be required for all request for proposals where price is requested to constitute less than fifty percent (50%) of the total evaluation score. Pricing proposals will not be opened until the proposals have been reviewed and ranked. Evaluation factors, other than price, may include, but not be limited to: (1) The ability, capacity, and skill of the offeror to perform the contract or provide the services required; (2) The capability of the offeror to perform the contract or provide the service promptly or within the time specified, without delay or interference; (3) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and efficiency of the offeror; (4) The quality of performance on previous contracts; (5) The previous and existing compliance by the offeror with laws and ordinances relating to the contract or services; (6) The sufficiency of the financial resources of the offeror relating to his ability to perform the contract; and (7) The quality, availability, and adaptability of the supplies or services to the particular use required. (h) Selection committee. A selection committee, minimally consisting of representatives of the procurement office, the using agency, and the Administrator's office or his designee shall convene for the purpose of evaluating the proposals. (i) Preliminary negotiations. Discussions with the offerors and technical Item revisions to the proposals may occur. Discussions may be conducted #3 with  Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 the responsible offerors who submit proposals for the purpose of clarification and to assure full understanding of, and conformance to, the solicitation requirements. Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussions and revision of proposals and such revisions may be permitted after submission and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining best and final offers. In conducting discussions, there shall be no disclosure of information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors. (j) From the date proposals are received by the Procurement Director through the date of contract award, no offeror shall make any substitutions, deletions, additions or other changes in the configuration or structure of the offeror’s teams or members of the offeror’s team. (k) Final negotiations and letting the contract. The Committee shall rank the technical proposals, open and consider the pricing proposals submitted by each offeror. Award shall be made or recommended for award through the Augusta, Georgia Administrator, to the most responsible and responsive offeror whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to Augusta, Georgia, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. No other factors or criteria shall be used in the evaluation. The contract file shall contain a written report of the basis on which the award is made/recommended. The contract shall be awarded or let in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Section and the other applicable sections of this chapter. Item # 3  Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 Redline (Version 8-20-2012) Sec. 1-10-52. Sealed proposals. (a) Conditions for use. In accordance with O.C.G.A. § 36-91-21(c)(1)(C), the competitive sealed proposals method may be utilized when it is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to Augusta, Georgia, taking into consideration the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. The evaluation factors in the request for proposals shall be the basis on which the award decision is made when the sealed proposal method is used. Augusta, Georgia is not restricted from using alternative procurement methods for obtaining the best value on any procurement, such as Construction Management at Risk, Design/Build, etc. (b) Request for proposals. Competitive sealed proposals shall be solicited through a request for proposals (RFP). (c) Public notice. Adequate public notice of the request for proposals shall be given in the same manner as provided in section 1-10- 50(c)(Public Notice and Bidder's List); provided the normal period of time between notice and receipt of proposals minimally shall be fifteen (15) calendar days. (d) Pre-proposal conference. A pre-proposal conference may be scheduled at least five (5) days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals, and notice shall be handled in a manner similar to section 1-10-50(c)-Public Notice and Bidder's List. No information provided at such pre-proposal conference shall be binding upon Augusta, Georgia unless provided in writing to all offerors. (e) Receipt of proposals. Proposals will be received at the time and place designated in the request for proposals, complete with bidder qualification and technical information. No late proposals shall be accepted. Price information shall be separated from the proposal in a sealed envelope and opened only after the proposals have been reviewed and ranked. The names of the offerors will be identified at the proposal acceptance; however, no proposal will be handled so as to permit disclosure of the detailed contents of the response until after award of contract. A record of all responses shall be prepared and maintained for the files and audit purposes. Item # 3  Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 (f) Public inspection. The responses will be open for public inspection only after contract award. Proprietary or confidential information marked as such in each proposal will not be disclosed without written consent of the offeror. (g) Evaluation and selection. The request for proposals shall state the relative importance of price and other evaluation factors that will be used in the context of proposal evaluation and contract award. Price shall constitute a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the total evaluation score on all request for proposals (except as otherwise provided in this Section or by conditions contained in federal or state grants). Prior Commission approval shall be required for all request for proposals where price is requested to constitute less than fifty percent (50%) of the total evaluation score. (Pricing proposals will not be opened until the proposals have been reviewed and ranked). Such eEvaluation factors, other than price, may include, but not be limited to: (1) The ability, capacity, and skill of the offeror to perform the contract or provide the services required; (2) The capability of the offeror to perform the contract or provide the service promptly or within the time specified, without delay or interference; (3) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and efficiency of the offeror; (4) The quality of performance on previous contracts; (5) The previous and existing compliance by the offeror with laws and ordinances relating to the contract or services; (6) The sufficiency of the financial resources of the offeror relating to his ability to perform the contract; and (7) The quality, availability, and adaptability of the supplies or services to the particular use required.; and (8) Price. (h) Selection committee. A selection committee, minimally consisting of representatives of the procurement office, the using agency, and the Item #of3 Administrator's office or his designee shall convene for the purpose  Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 evaluating the proposals. (i) Preliminary negotiations. Discussions with the offerors and technical revisions to the proposals may occur. Discussions may be conducted with the responsible offerors who submit proposals for the purpose of clarification and to assure full understanding of, and conformance to, the solicitation requirements. Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussions and revision of proposals and such revisions may be permitted after submission and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining best and final offers. In conducting discussions, there shall be no disclosure of information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors. (j) From the date proposals are received by the Procurement Director through the date of contract award, no offeror shall make any substitutions, deletions, additions or other changes in the configuration or structure of the offeror’s teams or members of the offeror’s team. (k) Final negotiations and letting the contract. The Committee shall rank the technical proposals, open and consider the pricing proposals submitted by each offeror. Award shall be made or recommended for award through the Augusta, Georgia Administrator, to the most responsible and responsive offeror whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to Augusta, Georgia, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. No other factors or criteria shall be used in the evaluation. The contract file shall contain a written report of the basis on which the award is made/recommended. The contract shall be awarded or let in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Section and the other applicable sections of this chapter. Item # 3  Administrative Services Committee Meeting 8/27/2012 1:05 PM Discuss as Information Amending the 2009 through 2012 Action Plans to Re-program $52,759.50 and the Revision to Scope of Work in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Department: Augusta Housing and Community Development Department Caption: Discuss amending Years 2009 through 2012 Action Plans to re- program $52,759.50 and revising the Scope of Work in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds (30 day comment period required). Background: Because certain funds are being forfeited and certain projects have unused funds, it has become necessary to reprogram these funds to facilitate their expenditure. We are proposing that funds be reprogrammed FROM the following projects: 1. Progressive Redevelopment - FY2009 CDBG $7,500.00 Justification: This Agency is no longer in existence with a balance for re- programming. 2. Caring Works - FY2010 CDBG $722.00 Justification: This Agency is no longer in existence with a balance for re-programming. 3. Down Payment Assistance (DPA) – FY2011 CDBG $14,966.00 Justification: DPA activity has decreased and funds were not being expended. 4. Christ Community –FY2012 CDBG $8,449.00 Justification: The Agency forfeited the 2012 funds. 5. East Augusta CDC – FY2012 $12,673.50 Justification: The Agency forfeited the 2012 funds. 6. Hope House FY 2012 - $8,449.00 Justification: The Agency forfeited the 2012 funds. Staff is proposing the funds be reprogrammed To the following projects: For CDBG: 1. Action Ministries - $7,500.00 (Progressive Redevelopment) and $722.00 (Caring Works) Total-$8,222.00. Funds are being transferred to support the Homeless Services that will be able to expend the funds by end of October 2012 to meet HUD expenditure requirement. 2. Homeless Transportation Program - $14,966.00 (Down Payment Program) , $12,673.50 (East Augusta) and $8,449.00 (Hope House) Total-$36,088.50. Funds are being transferred to support the Homeless Services. 3. Coordinated Health (St. Vincent DePaul) $8,449.00 (Christ Community). Funds are being transferred to support Medical assistance and services. Staff is proposing the revision of program Scope of Work From the following projects: 1) Laney Museum – To repair/replace elevator at the Laney Walker Museum. Cover Memo Justification: Project is providing improvement to additional areas Item # 4  of the Museum. Staff is proposing the revision of program Scope of Work To the following projects: Laney Museum – to Laney Museum Improvements According to the City’s Citizen Participation Policy, this increase in allocations constitute a substantial change to the Action Plans. Therefore, the revisions must be presented to the public for a 30-day comment period. If comments are received, they will be presented to the Commission for consideration. We are requesting authorization to proceed with the publication of a public notice in the newspapers to solicit comments on the changes. The Public Notice will be published in the Augusta Chronicle August 28, 2012 and the Metro Courier August 30,2012. The deadline for comments will be September 26, 2012. Any comments received will be presented to Commission on October 2, 2012. Analysis: The additional funds will allow the department to fund and proceed with more projects. Financial Impact: More funds available for projects. Alternatives: Recommendation: Accept the Housing and Community Department(HCD) recommendations for use of the additional funds and grant HCD authorization to proceed with the publication of a Public Notice soliciting citizen comments on the proposed changes to the 2009 through 2012 Action Plans. On October 2, 2012, any comments received will be presented to Commission for consideration. Funds are Available in the Following NA Accounts: REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Finance. Law. Administrator. Clerk of Commission Cover Memo Item # 4  Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 CDBG REPROGRAM FUNDS - $ 52,759.50 PUBLIC SERVICE - FUNDS - $37,793.50 Amount Amount YEAR FROM (-) YEAR TO (+) Progressive $7,500.00 2012 Action Ministries $7,500.00 2009 Redevelopment Caring Works $722.00 2012 Action Ministries $722.00 2010 Christ Community $8,449.00 2012 Coordinated Health $8,449.00 2012 East Augusta CDC $12,673.50 2010 Homeless Transportation $12,673.50 2012 Hope House $8,449.00 2010 Homeless Transportation $8,449.00 2012 TOTAL -$37,793.50 TOTAL $37,793.50 CDBG-DPA REPROGRAM FUNDS- $14,966.00 DPA FUNDS - $14,966.00 Amount Amount YEAR FROM (-) YEAR TO (+) Down Payment Homeless 2011 Assistance $14,966.00 2010 Transportation $14,966.00 TOTAL -$14,966.00 TOTAL $14,966.00 Public Down Payment Total Amount Service Assistance Reprogrammed Funds Funds $37,793.50 $14,966.00 $52,759.50 CDBG Reprogrammed Funds Item # 4  Administrative Services Committee Meeting 8/27/2012 1:05 PM Minutes Department: Clerk of Commission Caption: Motion to approve the minutes of the Administrative Services Committee held on August 13, 2012. Background: Analysis: Financial Impact: Alternatives: Recommendation: Funds are Available in the Following Accounts: REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Cover Memo Item # 5  Administrative Services Committee Meeting 8/27/2012 1:05 PM Request for permission to proceed w/ The Auburn @ Barton Chapel Road -- AHCDD Rental Housing Project Department: Housing and Community Development Department (AHCDD) Caption: Approve and allow the Augusta Housing and Community Development Department (AHCDD) to proceed with the Auburn @ Barton Chapel Road, a rental housing project consisting of 23 attached 2BR, 3BR and 4BR single family rental housing units for households considered low to moderate income via the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) and Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3) program guideline standards. Background: The Auburn @ Barton Chapel Road Project is a rental development project consisting of properties located at Ollie Road off Barton Chapel Road and previously owned by Todd Bailey at WHB Properties, LLC. AHCDD seeks to acquire the remaining lots (8 lots already purchased), within the development area, for the purpose of increasing the availability of affordable rental housing. Further, NSP3 funding ($306,523.00) will be used to acquire 100% of the lots (24) needed as part of this project, and NSP3 and HOME funds ($987,131.00) will be used to construct/develop eight (8) attached single-family rental units as part of Phase 1A (NSP3) and Phase 1B (HOME) respectively. From a National Objective perspective, this project is perfect for stabilizing areas greatly affected by downturns in development in this area. Additionally, this project is in an impact area for the agenda set for grant funding (high impact, single site project) and continues to remain compliant (with discount purchases) via our discounted purchase agreement with the property owner on the desired sales price. Equally important is the 50% and 80% Area Median Income (AMI) restrictions implemented on tenants that will ensure affordable rents for occupants looking for opportunities in Augusta Richmond County that currently are not available. Further, due to the fact that NSP funding (100%) was/will be used to acquire all of the land, we (AHCDD) have eliminated compliance of several HOME compliance deadline issues and Cover Memo have given ourselves more time to development a signature Item # 6  project. It is also important to know that all properties acquired, have been and will be banked by the Augusta Georgia Land Bank Authority. Therefore, if we receive Commission approval, we would move forward with negotiations with the Augusta Georgia Land Bank Authority to whom title will be transferred at closing for the preparation of an official contract offer. As part of this process we will be required to receive Land Bank approval prior to acquisition which will include a project review. Analysis: This project requires no match as 100% of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding is being used on this project via two (2)federal programs (HOME & NSP3) administered by AHCDD. Financial Impact: Funding apart of the Auburn @ Barton Chapel Project is as follows... NSP3 Funds (for acquisition) -- $306,523.00 NSP3 Funds (for development) -- $479.465.00 (estimate) HOME Funds (for development) -- $507,666.00 (estimate) Total Estimated Funds -- $1,293,654.00 (estimated total) Note: These budgetary numbers are merely estimates as this project has to be bided and a certified general contractor procured for services to be rendered. Thus, the total development costs could fluctuate either higher or lower depending on the lowest and best bid received. Alternatives: Don't do the project which would continue to leave this portion of South Augusta undeveloped. Recommendation: Augusta Commission move to approve the Augusta Housing and Community Development Department's request to proceed with the Auburn @ Barton Chapel Road Project Funds are Available No match required as 100% of the funding has been secured by in the Following AHCDD via its federal programs (HOME & NSP3) to be used. Accounts: REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Cover Memo Finance. Item # 6 Law. Administrator. Clerk of Commission Cover Memo Item # 6  Administrative Services Committee Meeting 8/27/2012 1:05 PM Equal Employment Opportunity Plan Department: Law Caption: Motion to adopt Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP) for Augusta, Georgia. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee August 13, 2012- deferred back to committee from the Commission's August 21, 2012 meeting) Background: The requirement to develop, maintain and submit an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP) derives from federal regulations implementing the Safe Streets Act. Recipients who have received funding under the Safe Streets Act must comply with the EEOP requirements. In addition, recipients of funding under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) must comply with the EEOP requirements because the JJDPA relies on the administrative provisions of the Safe Streets Act. Recipients of funding under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) must also comply with the EEOP requirements because as a matter of policy, the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) has made compliance with the EEOP requirements a condition for VOCA awards. Analysis: N/A Financial Impact: N/A Alternatives: Recommendation: Adopt EEOP for Augusta, Georgia Funds are Available in the Following N/A Accounts: REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Cover Memo Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 Item # 7  Administrative Services Committee Meeting 8/27/2012 1:05 PM Pine Street Development Department: Caption: Consider written response from the Director of Housing & Development Department regarding the Pine Street Development and other related activities as presented in the June 18th Questionnaire. Background: Analysis: Financial Impact: Alternatives: Recommendation: Funds are Available in the Following Accounts: REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Cover Memo Item # 8 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 Item # 8 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 Item # 8 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 Item # 8