Laserfiche WebLink
SAN � BOOK 88 22 <br />BACKGROUND: <br />On July 14, 1992, the Board authorized staff to prepare a Request for <br />Qualifications and accept proposals from qualified firms to design <br />and build the referenced system.- <br />There <br />ystemaThere were three firms that submitted proposals and on December 16, <br />1992, the selection committee met to hear presentations from all four <br />of the prospective consultants. A pre -designed form using points for <br />qualifications in -various areas of importance was the methodology <br />used in the selection process. Total points from each committee <br />member's form determined final ranking of the firms. <br />ANALYSIS: <br />The prospective consultants were judged on their past experience in <br />similar projects, personnel qualifications, what they perceived the <br />scope of work to be, and how well their firm was prepared to perform <br />the various tasks. The committee ranked the consultants as follows: <br />1. Precision Contracting Services, Inc. <br />2. Cypress Communications, -Inc. <br />3. Vidicom Division, L.D. Bevan Company, Inc. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />Staff respectfully request Board approval to negotiate with Precision <br />Contracting Services, Inc., for a contract to perform the subject <br />consulting work. The proposed contract will be brought back to the <br />Board of County Commissioners for their approval. <br />Director Dean explained that current system is linked via <br />microwave, which is very unreliable and is limited to one event at <br />any given time. There is money in the new Courthouse budget to <br />design and install a new fiberoptic system. Due to the size of <br />this project, it falls under the requirements of the Consultants' <br />Competitive Negotiation Act. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized <br />staff to negotiate with Precision Contracting <br />Services, Inc. for a contract to perform the subject <br />consulting work, and bring the proposal back to the <br />Board of County Commissioners for their approval, as <br />recommended by staff. <br />40 <br />