My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/16/1993
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
2/16/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:52 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 12:42:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/16/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Eggert proposed that Commissioners could attend <br />the presentations when consulting firms are interviewed. <br />Administrator Chandler suggested that staff could submit the <br />proposed documents to the Board and any Commissioner who is <br />concerned with a specific project could attend the interview <br />process, although that takes a minimum of a half day and sometimes <br />a full day. <br />Director Pinto advised that presentations for utilities <br />projects in the past year were videotaped and are available for <br />viewing at any time. <br />Chairman Bird felt that staff seems to be able to scrutinize <br />and understand larger items whereas on some details of a project, <br />such as irrigation systems for landscaping, we unfortunately do not <br />have anybody on staff who is expert enough to judge that. <br />Commissioner Macht determined that we must have a trail of <br />accountability. We' must have confidence in our staff and hold them <br />accountable, and consultants must know that staff is going to hold <br />them accountable for the proper execution of taxpayers' projects. <br />Commissioner Macht was concerned about these issues because there <br />could be implications of multimillion dollar import. He did not <br />want to be involved in a situation like Martin or Polk Counties. <br />Chairman Bird viewed the process as beginning with a <br />determination that we need a consultant. We must rely on the <br />department heads to judge whether we have the in-house capability <br />to do a project. If we do not have the in-house capability, staff <br />must convince the Commissioners that the project is necessary and <br />that we do not have the in-house ability. A Request For Proposals <br />(RFP) is drawn up which spells out the type of services we need, we <br />go to the selection procedure, and staff picks the firm best <br />qualified for the project. The tough part is negotiating the <br />price. We want to make the best deal for the County, but if the <br />firm is screwed down too tight and they don't have the funds to <br />employ qualified people with the expertise to do the studies and so <br />forth, then we may not end up with a quality job. Additionally, <br />comparisons with similar projects throughout the state of Florida <br />could help to determine the reasonableness of a price. <br />Administrator Chandler agreed that costs can be compared with <br />other similar projects. Staff judges other important factors such <br />as the time estimate, because time translates into hourly rates, <br />the overhead of the company and their locations, which may add to <br />travel costs. These specifics are not determined until the firms <br />are ranked by qualification and negotiations begin. If our first <br />choice turns out to be too high, we go to the next ranked firm. <br />Sometimes you find out that the number two firm's price is the same <br />19 <br />FEB 161993 Boa 88 PP{la <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.