Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />Preliminary Ranking <br />Application Preparation Services <br />Administration Services <br />1. Clark, Roumelis & Associates <br />1. Berryman and Heniger <br />2. Berryman and Heniger <br />2. Clark, Roumelis & Associates <br />3. Fred Fox Enterprises <br />3. Fred Fox Enterprises <br />4. Jordan and Associates <br />4. Jordan and Associates <br />5. Angie Brewer & Associates <br />5. Angie Brewer & Associates <br />6. Tynan Group, Inc. <br />6. Tynan Group, Inc. <br />Firms that were ranked one through three were contacted and asked to make a presentation before <br />the consultant selection committee on February 5, 1999. Initially agreeing to make a presentation, <br />Fred Fox Enterprises canceled its presentation due to a scheduling conflict. Based on the county <br />attorney's recommendation, the fourth ranked firm was asked to make a presentation on February <br />5, along with the top two firms. On February 5, Jordan and Associates canceled its presentation due <br />to a scheduling conflict. Therefore, the selection committee heard only two presentations; those <br />were from Clark, Roumelis & Associates and Berryman and Heniger. Based on the final round of <br />review, the two firms were ranked as follows: <br />Final Ranking <br />Application Preparation Services <br />Administration Services <br />1. Clark, Roumelis & Associates <br />1. Clark, Roumelis & Associates <br />2. Berryman and Heniger <br />2. Berryman and Heniger <br />As indicated in its proposal, Clark, Roumelis & Associates will prepare the application at no charge <br />to the county. If the application receives funding, Clark Roumelis & Associates will get a <br />percentage of the grant funds, up to 8%, for administering the project. If the project does not get <br />funded, there will be no cost to the county for the consultant having prepared the application. <br />As part of the CDBG program requirements, the Board of County Commissioners must establish a <br />CDBG Advisory Committee or activate the existing one. On January 12, 1999, a letter was sent to <br />all the members of the Advisory Committee. Only one of fourteen members responded to that letter. <br />Based on that response, county staff attempted to phone the members that have a phone number <br />listed with the county. Of the eight members contacted by phone, six members indicated that they <br />would like to remain on the committee; one member recommended someone to replace him on the <br />committee; and the remaining member has not yet responded. The table below summarizes the <br />current status of each CDBG Advisory Committee member. <br />CDBG Advisory Committee <br />Name <br />Address <br />Phone Number <br />Method of <br />Response <br />Contact <br />Ruth <br />County <br />N/A <br />N/A <br />Appointed by the BCC to remain <br />Stanbridge, <br />Commissioner <br />on the Committee <br />Chairman <br />James Chandler <br />I County Staff <br />N/A <br />Phone Call Not remain on Committee <br />FEBRUARY 23, 1999 <br />29 <br />• <br />BOOK IU( PAGE 4 <br />