Laserfiche WebLink
In January, the staff prepared a request for proposal (RFP) which <br />was advertised and distributed on January 31, 1990. Because this <br />project does not require the services of architects, engineers, <br />landscape architects, or land surveyors, the selection process <br />was not subject to the requirements of the consultants <br />competitive negotiation act (CCNA). So unlike CCNA projects, <br />this selection process included cost as one of, the ranking <br />criteria. <br />ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS <br />Three proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. The firms <br />submitting proposals were Logix International, Inc.; Peat Marwick <br />Main & Company; and Tindale - Oliver & Associates. <br />.on March 2, 1990, the selection committee met and. heard <br />presentations from each of the firms. Based upon the submitted <br />proposals and presentations, the selection committee ranked the <br />firms as follows: <br />1. Tindale - Oliver & Associates <br />2. Peat Marwick Main & Company <br />3. Logix International, Inc. <br />Tindale - Oliver was the overwhelming choice. of the <br />subcommittee because it was the only firm with knowledge of and <br />experience in concurrency management systems. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />The staff recommends that the board of county commissioners <br />accept the consultant selection committee's ranking and authorize <br />the staff to negotiate a contract and detailed scope of services <br />with Tindale - Oliver. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- <br />missioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the <br />consultant selection committee's ranking and authorized <br />staff to negotiate a contract and detailed scope of <br />services with Tindale - Oliver. <br />CONTRACT W/TINDALE/OLIVER & ASSOC. ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK <br />TO THE BOARD. <br />3 ROOK <br />MAR 13 1990 <br />