4/19/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Siver was selected from among a number of firms which responded to our Request for Proposals for Insurance and Risk Management Consulting Services. Siver's proposal was extensive and the fee proposal was $20,000 - $30,000 for conduct of an Audit and preparation of a Report. By memorandum dated July 24, 1987 I recommended that Siver be awarded a contract and said "I do not believe we should proceed to award a contract beyond the audit and report levels at this time. We may wish to contract for additional services as proposed by Siver" (in its response to our RFP) "once the basic engagement is completed". The Board authorized a contract with Siver with the proviso that we be informed when the cost approached the $20,000 level. Subsequently, staff prepared and the Chairman executed an Agreement under the terms of which Siver would undertake the audit and prepare a report. The Fee Schedule set forth in the subject Agreement was as follows: Rate/Hour Class I: Senior Consultants who have pro- $90.00 fessional designations (CPCU, CLU,: ARM, AIU, JD, PE, MAI, FCAS, ChFC, etc.) or who have 15 years experi- ence in their special fields. Class II: Consultants 60.00 Class III: Administrative - Persons involved in 25.00 clerical and record keeping matters Plus customary out-of-pocket expenses. When expenditures of total fees and costs for the Audit and Report approach $20,000.00, CONSULTANT shall notify the COUNTY Administrator. COUNTY reserves the right to terminate the Agreement when expenditures reach $20,000.00. To date, Siver's fees total $9,132.75. Note that it was our understanding that the .total cost to the County for conducting the audit and preparing the report was to be in the $20,000-$30,000 range based on hours billed times the hourly rates above plus out-of-pocket expenses. This was subject to Siver notifying us when total fees and costs approach $20,000". At that point, the County could terminate the contract. Siver's position is that they have obtained sufficient information from their audit at this point and further, that it would not be appropriate for them to expend more time and bill us for further services incidental to additional audit work. Siver suggests that the County would be better served and our funds more appropriately utilized if they were now authorized to proceed to the next step(s) in our program. By letter dated March 29, 1988 Siver made several recommendations for professional services. The most important and timely is Recommendation I which involves assistance in development of a Request for Proposals "for the replacement/renewal of current policies to include the recommendations noted under the Discussion Points section of the overview". A copy of that correspondence is attached. 36 AP Bong 72 rdi,E 117 1 S 1988