CITY OF DES MOINES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) V17-051

Transcription

1 CITY OF DES MOINES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) V PREPARE AN EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF DES MOINES, IOWA All proposals are due on or before 11:30 a.m., CST, April 5, 2017, and shall be valid for 120 days from the RFP due date. One original and five (5) copies of the proposal, plus one electronic copy on CD or a flash drive in pdf format, shall be submitted to the Procurement Administrator at: City of Des Moines Procurement Office 400 East Court Avenue Des Moines, IA Attn. Michael L. Valen (515) Requests for clarification regarding this RFP must be made to the Procurement Administrator at mlvalen@dmgov.org no later than 3:00 p.m., March 22, Proposers wishing to respond to this RFP or receive addendums must notify the Procurement Administrator no later than 3:00 pm, March 22, Answers to requests for clarification will be provided to all persons making a request no later than 3:00pm, March 29, Electronic copy of this RFP may be requested by contacting the Procurement Administrator. 1

2 Section 1 - General Information 1.1 Background In 1990, the City of Des Moines and Polk County Board of Supervisors created the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) to help stabilize and improve Des Moines neighborhoods. Providing the framework for the NRP was the Housing Improvement and Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy created by the consulting firm of Stockard & Engler, Inc. The Stockard & Engler plan provided strategies to address decline and also led to the creation of the Neighborhood Finance Corporation, Neighborhood Development Corporation, and the Polk County Housing Trust Fund. The City continues to provide annual funding to both Neighborhood Finance Corporation and Neighborhood Development Corporation. Fifteen years after its inception, The Wisconsin Housing Partnership and Stockard Engler Brigham LLC returned to Des Moines to evaluate the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and provide updated strategies to address the City s most distressed neighborhoods. A primary component of this evaluation was to expand the concept of revitalization to include investing in people as well as housing and infrastructure. Recommendations are outlined in their report A New Strategy for a New Time: An Evaluation and Recommendations for the Future of Des Moines Neighborhood Revitalization Program. Since 1990, the City of Des Moines has utilized the neighborhood revitalization strategy as a foundation in planning and implementation. It has inspired a more comprehensive approach in how the City expends funds from the capital improvements program, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). The neighborhood revitalization strategy has directed public and private reinvestment, especially to low-income areas that have been neglected. In turn, that reinvestment has restored stability to distressed neighborhoods and spurred more improvements directly from the residents and businesses within those targeted areas. The City of Des Moines is soliciting the professional services of a qualified consulting firm/agency to once again evaluate the current Neighborhood Revitalization Program, and provide recommendations for future neighborhood planning efforts. A variety of factors are driving a need for an updated framework: A new City Manager was appointed in 2014, and several new members have recently been elected to the Des Moines City Council. With the changing leadership has also come a change in focus. While downtown Des Moines has seen tremendous growth and investment over the past twenty years, leadership has indicated that improvements to our neighborhoods and commercial corridors is a growing priority. The Des Moines Strategic Plan otherwise known as Guide DSM, was developed by the Mayor and Council to communicate these priority areas. The Neighborhood Planning Division has experienced transition with a new Director and planning staff. Key partners, including the Neighborhood Finance Corporation and Neighborhood Development Corporation, are also under direction of new leadership. Plan DSM Creating Our Tomorrow was formally adopted by Des Moines City Council on 2

3 April 25, Plan DSM is a comprehensive plan to guide land use and community-wide development for the next 25 years. Plan DSM is also Des Moines mechanism to implement The Tomorrow Plan, a regional plan focusing on sustainable development, made possible through the HUD Sustainable Communities Challenge Grant. Beginning in 2017, the City will also be developing a Transportation Master Plan and Park & Recreation Master Plan. Capital Crossroads vision plan for central Iowa was completed in 2014 and is intended to enhance the economic competitiveness of the Greater Des Moines area. The Capital Core element of the Plan focuses on the philosophy that a strong, growing region needs a healthy central city in order to thrive. As part of the Capital Core element, the Neighborhood Improvement Implementation Plan identifies five strategic initiatives for neighborhood revitalization, and recommends tactics and actions to complement and strengthen existing efforts, highlighting tools that are currently missing or under-resourced. Capital Crossroads 2.0 was released in February 2017, with strategies for the next five years. Viva East Bank! is a coalition of partners and residents working together to revitalize three distressed neighborhoods in Des Moines central core. The coalition was launched in August 2014, after two years of planning work in the individual neighborhoods. As a pilot effort for comprehensive, holistic revitalization focusing on both the built environment and human capital, Viva East Bank! has seen many successes. However, city staff is also becoming more knowledgeable of the challenges in engaging residents and partners in the revitalization effort. Non-profit organizations Friends of SW 9 th and the 6 th Avenue Corridor have formed to address the ongoing revitalization needs of designated districts within the city. Friends of SW 9 th was a direct outcome of the SW 9 th Street Corridor Plan, developed by the City, Iowa State University Community Design Lab, and a resident steering committee. The economic recession and housing crisis have contributed to ongoing concerns with poorly maintained, vacant, blighted, and nuisance properties. The City is currently investigating the feasibility of an exterior maintenance code for residential and commercial properties, while establishment of a land bank is also being given significant consideration by private entities. In December 2016, the City completed work with a consultant on Strategies to Effectively Address and Prevent Vacant and Blighted (Residential) Properties. The selected consultant must have experience with neighborhood-based planning, program development, and the evaluation of guidelines, policies, and implementation strategies related to neighborhood stabilization and revitalization. Section 2.0 Scope of Work outlines in more detail the services to be completed. It is anticipated that completion of the final evaluation and recommendations will require approximately 6-9 months to complete, with additional time for formal plan adoption. 1.2 Proposal Submittal Requirements The submittal must include the following information: Introductory Requirements a. Transmittal Letter Proposals must have a transmittal letter signed by an authorized representative of the consultant s company confirming the consultant s availability to accomplish this project 3

4 and a commitment to complete the project in a timely manner and no later than 6 to 9 months from execution of the contract for the project. b. Project Understanding A statement describing the consultant s understanding of the project and any special skills the consultant will bring to the project General Information a. The following information is required for each firm in the proposing team: i. Firm name(s) ii. Business address(es) iii. Primary contact name, and telephone number iv. Year established v. Type of ownership/business organization b. Experience i. Provide information on the team s background and experience on similar projects. ii. Provide background of key members of the consultant s team, and sub-consultant s team if any, and their specific experience in previous projects that would relate to this project. c. Potential or Perceived Conflicts of Interest i. Any potential or perceived conflicts of interest must be disclosed Project Approach, Schedule and Presentations a. Provide narrative detailing the consultant s approach to complete the project as described in the RFP. It is expected the consultant will suggest a public involvement process that will include staff, leadership, and stakeholder interviews. Stakeholders are identified in the list found in the Appendix A. c. Provide an overall project schedule including the timing of major tasks, meetings, presentations, and reports. d. Describe any additional deliverables for the overall project and each phase of the project that would be provided in addition to those required in Section 2. f. Provide any additional analysis or approaches felt to be relevant to indicate the consultant s ability to successfully complete this project Resumes Provide resumes of individuals who will be working on the project. For each individual, describe their proposed role and list their relevant experience as requested in b above References Provide references from at least three municipal entities for which the consultant has provided similar planning services. References are to include the name of a project contact along with their position, address and telephone number. Each reference is to include a description of the services provided to the client and the consultant s specific role Project Costs Expenses are to be broken down into line items showing the cost of each major phase as well as a not to exceed cost. Line items should include any expected travel costs Other Information 4

5 The Proposal may include any other information, such as services or capability not identified in this RFP that would qualify the Proposer or contribute to the City s objectives. Proposers have an obligation to disclose affiliations with or financial involvement in any business or entity (e.g. software or hardware company/vendor, consulting firm, service provider, etc.) with a direct interest in the subject matter or outputs of the scope of work of this RFP. Proposers have an obligation to disclose at the time of their proposal, any conflict of interest which has the potential to influence their analysis, investigation, findings, and final report. The Proposal must include work samples produced by the Proposer, including but not limited to models used for data gathering and analysis and examples of public outreach on prior similar projects successfully completed by the Proposer Additional Requirements All proposers must submit completed Attachments 1 and 3: Attachment 1 Affidavit of Non-Collusion Attachment 3 Certification of Insurance Coverage The successful proposer (Contractor) will be required to comply with the insurance and indemnification requirements in Attachment 2. Standard Provisions and Requirements for Requests For Proposals and General Terms & Conditions shall apply to this RFP and the resulting contract. 1.3 Evaluation Process Proposals will be evaluated by an Evaluation and Selection Committee. Evaluations will be based on criteria outlined herein. All proposals will be evaluated using the same criteria and weighting. The highest scoring proposal will be recommended to the City Council for award of contract. The Selection Criteria and weighting used will be: Capability to Perform Scope of Services (Section 2) (60 points) The City will consider all the material submitted by each Proposer to determine whether the Proposer is capable of and has a history of successfully completing contracts of this type. The following elements may be given consideration by the City in determining whether a Proposer is capable : a. The ability, experience and skill of the Proposer to perform the Scope of Services; b. Proposer s ability to perform the Contract within the time specified; and Experience in Neighborhood-Based Planning and Program Development (20 points) In addition to the basic capabilities set forth in Section 1.3.1, Proposals will be evaluated based on demonstrated proficiency in neighborhood-based planning, revitalization of distressed neighborhoods, program development, and evaluation of private/public partnerships, all of which are strongly desired Cost (20 points) The City has allocated up to $150,000 for development of the Neighborhood Revitalization Program evaluation and recommendation. 5

6 Proposers shall furnish their proposed price to perform the objectives listed in Section 2 Scope of Work. All costs including any travel and material production are to be included. The maximum number of points will be awarded to the proposal with the lowest cost. Points assigned to other proposals will be on a proportional basis according to the following formula: Proposal A: $90,000 = 20 points Proposal B: $120,000 = 15 points Low Cost Proposal A/Proposal B X 20 = points awarded $100,000/$120,000 X 20 = 15 points Local Preference (1 point) Given to businesses with headquarters, or headquarters of its parent or holding company, residing within the corporate limits of the City of Des Moines as required by section of the municipal Code Interview Depending on the scoring of proposals and number of proposals received the City, at its sole discretion, may choose to interview all proposers, the top scoring proposers, or none of them. If interviews are held, the proposals of those interviewed will be rescored based upon the above Selection Criteria factoring in the interview as well Reservation of Rights The City reserves the right to: 1. Reject any and all proposals received in response to this RFP. 2. Waive or modify any defects or irregularities in any proposal or proposal procedure. 3. Request additional information or modifications to proposals prior to award if in the best interests of the City. 4. Use any ideas submitted in proposals, except for those which are protected by an enforceable patent or other proprietary right and such idea is identified as protected by patent or other proprietary right and identified as confidential pursuant to Section 8 of the Standard Provisions and Requirements. 5. In the event of unsuccessful contract negotiations or contract termination, the City reserves the right to enter into contract negotiations with other qualified providers that submitted acceptable proposals. 1.4 Proposal Modification, Clarification and Selection The City will not reimburse Proposer for any costs involved in the preparation and submission of responses to this RFP or in the preparation for and attendance at subsequent interviews. Furthermore, this RFP does not obligate the City to accept or contract for any expressed or implied services. The City reserves the right to request any Proposer to clarify its proposal or to supply any additional material deemed necessary to assist in the evaluation of the Proposer. 1.5 Notification of Withdrawal Proposals may be modified or withdrawn prior to the date and time specified for proposal submission by written request. 6

7 1.6 Signature By submission of a proposal, proposers confirm that all parts of this RFP have been read and understood. Section 2 - Scope of Work 2.1 Objectives The goal of the work to be performed is to provide an updated framework for the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. It is intended that the work will be completed in two phases. Phase I shall focus on analyzing data and gathering input from city staff, leadership, and partners to develop an informed evaluation of the existing program. Phase II shall provide detailed recommendations and strategies to direct future efforts of the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. Specific questions to be addressed with each phase are included as follows: Phase I: Assessment of Existing Neighborhood Revitalization Program A. With changes in city leadership, what is the vision for Des Moines neighborhoods? What do City & County leaders see as our biggest needs and top priorities? How do we define a revitalized neighborhood, and what indicators are we using to measure success? B. Is the current neighborhood planning process and structure effective? Based on indicators determined above, have we been successful in stabilizing and improving our neighborhoods? Is the program working to accomplish goals set forth by City leadership? Note: This may require both quantitative and qualitative investigation. C. With the adoption of PlanDSM and a new zoning code forthcoming that will be more form-based, how do these documents change the purpose and/or methods of the Neighborhood Revitalization Program / Neighborhood Planning? D. The City has partnered with Iowa State University s Department of Community and Regional Planning to update plans in a number of Chartered neighborhoods. Is the process effective, and are these plans valuable to the neighborhoods that receive them? E. What are the roles of the City and neighborhood associations in addressing neighborhood needs? With neighborhood associations struggling to attract members and active volunteers, do the neighborhoods have adequate capacity to continue the current model of planning and implementation, as well as being the official voice representing their neighborhood? F. Are the current organizations and programs the City utilizes to promote neighborhood revitalization successful? Are resources being allocated effectively? a. City-sponsored organizations and programs include the Neighborhood Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program, Neighborhood Based Service Delivery, and Neighborhood Revitalization Board. b. Outside organizations supported by the City include the Neighborhood Finance Corporation, the Neighborhood Development Corporation, neighborhood associations, 6 th Avenue Corridor, Friends of SW 9 th, and various SSMID organizations. Are the government-source funds provided to some of these agencies being used in the most appropriate way, given the current goals and priorities of City and County leaders? 7

8 G. What programs or partnerships are we lacking that can assist the Neighborhood Revitalization Program? Deliverable: Summary report to outline key findings of quantitative analysis, input gathering and consultant evaluation. A minimum of two presentations shall be scheduled to share preliminary findings with City staff, the steering committee, and City Council. Phase II: Provide Recommendations for the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. A. Based on the goals identified in Phase I, how do we measure progress/success going forward? How does the next evolution of the Neighborhood Revitalization Program achieve the City Council goals outlined in GuideDSM? B. Does the organizational structure of the Community Development Department and Neighborhood Development Division fully lend itself to Neighborhood Revitalization Program? How can support and coordination from City departments such as Economic Development, Engineering, Public Works, Legal and Parks assist in long-term revitalization efforts? What is the most appropriate governance structure for the Program and best process for plan approval? How effective is the current process of plan implementation? C. The Neighborhood Revitalization Program established a now institutionalized system where the City formally recognizes neighborhoods, designates them to participate in the planning process, and then charters them once the plan goals have been substantially met. This system has also empowered Neighborhood Associations as the voice representing neighborhoods on issues. Given the input on questions E in Phase I, what is the most appropriate role for Neighborhood Associations in City planning and development? What is the best process for selecting neighborhoods into the program? D. Expansion of the Neighborhood Finance Corporation (NFC) is a high priority for the Des Moines City Council, as directed in the Guide DSM strategic plan. How can the NFC best serve Des Moines residents and the Neighborhood Revitalization Program? Is the government source funding being used in the most appropriate way? E. Effectively addressing and reducing vacant and blighted properties is a high priority for Des Moines, as discussed in Capital Crossroads, Plan DSM and in the Guide DSM strategic plan. The City recently completed a technical assistance engagement to develop a comprehensive set of strategies for addressing these properties, including data collection systems, code enforcement policies and procedures, land banking, and delinquent tax enforcement. How do these strategies become integrated into neighborhood revitalization work? F. Several streetscape projects have been implemented in recent years, strengthening the commercial districts in which they are located. With the success of these projects, many neighborhoods are now requesting corridor plans and streetscape improvements in their area. However, funds remain limited to implement these projects, and neighborhood stakeholders are responsible for private fundraising to support the project. How should the City fund and prioritize streetscape and corridor projects? Are these projects proving catalytic to neighborhood revitalization? 8

9 G. Nonprofit community development groups have organized to coordinate corridor beautification projects, promote commercial and multi-family redevelopment, and plan events and activities that help promote their district. Neighborhood planning staff has assisted these efforts to varying levels. What role should the City play in supporting these community groups and efforts both financially and administratively? H. What role does historic preservation play in the revitalization of our neighborhoods? The City has been active in targeting houses through the tax sale process and/or forgiving liens and assessments to help make these projects financially viable for rehabbers. How can the City and its partners help encourage and promote historic preservation? I. Where is it most effective for us to target our limited financial and administrative resources? How can we strengthen the relationship between the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and the Consolidated Plan, which is the strategic plan for how the City expends its federal entitlement funds? What other funding sources should the City consider dedicating to plan implementation? Deliverable: Final written report with detailed recommendations and strategies for the Neighborhood Revitalization Program, answering in detail all the foregoing questions and including the process to select neighborhoods and corridors for planning work, resource reallocation, plan implementation, and progress measurement. A minimum of three presentations shall be scheduled to present findings and recommendations to the steering and technical committees, City staff, City leadership, the Neighborhood Revitalization Board, and the Polk County Board of Supervisors. The final report will be formally adopted by the Des Moines City Council and Polk County Board of Supervisors upon completion. 2.2 Resources The selected firm / team will work and coordinate with City s Project Manager and City of Des Moines staff. The Project Manager will assist in coordinating meetings, gathering data, and providing information necessary to complete the evaluation and recommendations. Staff will assist in putting together Steering and Technical Committees. 2.3 Contractor Role and Responsibility The role and responsibilities of the selected firm/team will include providing objectives and deliverables listed in Sections 2.1 and 2.4. The selected firm/team will be required to submit progress reports to the City s Contract Project Manager who reports to the Community Development Director and Deputy Director. 2.4 Deliverables In addition to the deliverables outlined under Section 2.1, monthly progress reports and reproducible and/or electronic copies of all research, notes, documents, and presentations may be requested by the Community Development Director and Deputy Director. All research, notes, and documents created during the duration of this contract will be the sole property of the City of Des Moines. At the conclusion of the project, the consultant will provide fifteen original copies of the report. Additionally, one electronic copy will be provided in PDF format. 9

10 2.5 Time Frame The maximum time frame for adoption of the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan Evaluation and Recommendations is within 10 months from the initiation of a contract, unless mutually agreed to in writing by both parties. 10

11 Appendix A 2017 Neighborhood Revitalization Program Evaluation Draft Stakeholders List The following individuals, organizations, or groups should be consulted during the Program Evaluation. This is a draft list and other stakeholders may be identified or certain stakeholders may be deleted. Some of these groups may be represented on the Steering or Technical committees. Steering Committee City staff will identify a steering committee for the project, which will include stakeholders from the list below. Technical Advisory Committee - City staff will identify a technical advisory committee for the project, which will include stakeholders from the list below. City of Des Moines: - City Manager - City Council - Neighborhood Development Division staff - Staff from other departments/divisions impacted by neighborhood/small area planning which may include: Engineering, Park & Recreation, Public Works, Economic Development, Neighborhood Inspections, Planning & Urban Design, Police, Human Rights, Legal, Library, Housing Services? - Neighborhood Revitalization Board Polk County - Board of Supervisors Neighborhood Associations - Recent participants in the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) - Participants in the NRP pilot partnership with Iowa State University - First round participants in the Neighborhood Revitalization Program - Neighborhoods that have never participated in the Neighborhood Revitalization Program 28E Partners: - Neighborhood Finance Corporation - Neighborhood Development Corporation Strategic Partners/Funders: - Capital Crossroads/Greater Des Moines Partnership - United Way of Central Iowa - Polk County Housing Trust Fund - AARP/Age Friendly Cities Initiative Housing Partners: - Greater Des Moines Habitat for Humanity - HOME Inc. - Community Housing Initiatives - Rebuilding Together Greater Des Moines 11

12 - Anawim Housing Transportation/Infrastructure Partners: - Des Moines Area Regional Transit (DART) - Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (DMAMPO) Other Current or Potential Community Partners: - Des Moines Public Schools - Major Institutions, such as: UnityPoint Health, Mercy Hospital, Broadlawns Hospital, Drake University, Grandview University, Des Moines Area Community College - 6 th Ave Corridor, Friends of SW 9 th - Chambers of Commerce? Iowa State University - College of Design, Department of Community & Regional Planning Other Boards & Commissions: - Park & Recreation Board - Historic Preservation Commission - Plan & Zoning Commission - Urban Design Review Board - Des Moines/Polk County Continuum of Care Board 12

13 STANDARD PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS (RFPs) 1. Proposal Must Be Signed by Proposer or Its Officer or Designated Agent A proposal submitted in response to the City s Request for Proposals shall be signed by the proposer if an individual, or by an officer of the proposing firm, or by a designated agent empowered to bind the firm in a contract. 2. Partnership and Joint Venture Proposals; Use of Corporate Name or Fictitious Corporate Name. (a) If a proposal is submitted by two or more persons acting as a partnership, the names of the persons appearing on the proposal must be followed by the notation -- "a partnership", or words of similar import. (b) If a proposal is submitted by two or more persons or corporate entities as a joint venture, the names of the persons or entities appearing on the proposal must be followed by the notation -- "a joint venture". In that instance, the proposal must also be signed by all such persons and/or the authorized agents of all such entities, and the proposal bond or fidelity bond, if any is required, must cover the joint venture. Joint venture proposals shall identify which person or firm will act as lead person of firm. (c) A proposal submitted by two or more persons or corporate entities without any indication that they are submitting it as a joint venture, without being signed by all such persons and/or the authorized representatives of all such entities, and without a proposal bond or fidelity bond covering all such persons or entities as a joint venture, will be subject to rejection. (d) In submitting a proposal and in entering into a contract in response to an RFP, a corporate entity may use its fictitious corporate name in addition to its legal corporate name, if the fictitious name is appropriately registered with the Iowa Secretary of State. Proposers are advised to exercise care in the use of any fictitious name for their firms. 3. Proposer Questions, Objections or Requests for Information, Clarification or Interpretation to be Submitted to Procurement Administrator - Proposers Prohibited from Inappropriate Communication with City Officials or Employees - Inappropriate Communication May Result in Rejection or Return of Proposals - Inappropriate Communication May be Considered in Evaluation of Proposals. In order to ensure an open process and the provision of equal knowledge and opportunity to all potential proposers, the Procurement Administrator or his/her designee will serve as the sole point of contact for questions, objections, informational requests and requests for clarification or interpretation during the RFP process. The City's intention is to avoid such questions, objections, or requests for information or clarification being posed by an individual proposer and then being answered only for that proposer. Instead, the City's goal is to allow such questions, objections and requests to be posed by all potential proposers, and to communicate those questions, objections and requests, and the City's responses, to all potential proposers. Consequently, only written questions, objections or requests for clarification or interpretation, submitted by mail, FAX, or , will be accepted from potential proposers, and written responses will be issued to all known potential proposers. Dates and times for acceptance of questions, objections 13

14 and requests, and for delivery of written responses, will be detailed in the RFP. Oral questions, objections or requests will not be accepted. After issuance of an RFP by the City, persons or entities who intend to respond to such RFP by submission of a competitive proposal, and who desire to pose questions, objections, or requests for information, clarification or interpretation regarding any term, provision, or requirement of the RFP, shall not attempt to communicate with, in writing, electronically, or orally, any City official or employee other than the City's Procurement Administrator. After issuance of an RFP, persons or entities who intend to respond to such RFP by submission of a competitive proposal shall not communicate with, in writing, electronically, or orally, any other City official or employee in an attempt to gather information which would be helpful in responding to the RFP, or in an attempt to influence the City's consideration of its competing proposal. All inappropriate communications with City officials or employees will be reported to the Procurement Administrator and evaluation and selection committee. Such inappropriate communication by a proposer or potential proposer may, at the discretion of the Procurement Administrator, constitute grounds for disqualification of that proposer's proposal, resulting in the Procurement Administrator's refusal to accept such proposal or in the return of such proposal. Further, the evaluation and selection committee may in its discretion consider such inappropriate communication in evaluating and scoring such proposal. The Procurement Administrator will advise City officials and staff of the pendency of RFPs for evaluation or award, and during the pendency thereof City staff or officials will be prohibited from engaging in discussion of an RFP with a proposer or potential proposer unless so directed or approved by the Procurement Administrator. The foregoing notwithstanding, any proposer or potential proposer who believes that the terms of an RFP are objectionable, or who believes that the Procurement Administrator or other City staff have not appropriately responded to its questions, objections, or requests for information, clarification or interpretation regarding any term, provision, or requirement of the RFP, or who believes that the Procurement Administrator, other City staff or the evaluation and selection committee have a bias against it or are treating it unfairly, may communicate its concerns in that regard to the City Manager or City Council. A proposer or potential proposer shall first communicate its concerns directly to the City Manager, orally or in writing. If the City Manager cannot resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the proposer or potential proposer, the City Manager shall, at the request of the proposer or potential proposer, forward such concerns to the City Council for its consideration. 4. Not Used 5. City's Response to Proposer Questions, Objections, and Requests for Clarification or Interpretation; Issuance of Addenda to RFP. The City's Procurement Administrator will respond in writing to all questions, objections, or requests for information, clarification or interpretation presented to the City as provided in paragraph 3. The City s written response will be directed to all known potential proposers. Only the City's written responses shall be considered the City's official response binding upon the City. In addition to making a written response, the City may issue addenda amending the RFP by changing or deleting the provisions of, or adding provisions to, the RFP. 6. Collusion Prohibited - Affidavit Required. Any agreement or collusion among proposers or prospective proposers, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to propose a fixed price or otherwise shall render the proposals of such proposers void. Proposers will be required to execute and submit with their proposals a Non-Collusion 14

15 Affidavit in the form appended hereto as Attachment 1. Any disclosure by one proposer to another proposer of the content of a proposal in advance of the submission of proposals shall render the proposals of both such proposers void, and may at the discretion of the Procurement Administrator render the RFP proceedings void. 7. Gratuities Prohibited. (a) The laws of Iowa provide that it is a felony to offer, promise, or give any thing of value or benefit to government employees with the intent to influence that employee s acts, opinion, judgment or exercise of discretion with respect to that employee s duties. Evidence of violations of this clause will be turned over to the appropriate law enforcement agency. (b) The City of Des Moines provides reimbursement for transportation lodging, meals and miscellaneous expense for its employees incurred while on duty and engaged in the preparation or evaluation of RFPs. 8. Proposals Not Confidential; Proposer Requests for Confidentiality Under Iowa Open Records Law, Chapter 22 of Iowa Code; Disclosure of Proposal Content. Under Chapter 22 of the Iowa Code, Examination of Public Records, all records of a governmental body are presumed to be public records, open to inspection by members of the public. Section 22.7 of the Iowa Code sets forth a number of exceptions to that general rule, establishing several categories of confidential records. Under this provision, confidential records are to be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered by a court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to release such information. Among the public records which are considered confidential under this Iowa Code provision are the following: 3. Trade secrets which are recognized and protected as such by law. 6. Reports to governmental agencies which, if released, would give advantage to competitors and serve no public purpose. Under Chapter 22 of the Iowa Code, the City, as custodian of the proposal submitted in response to a Request for Proposals, may, but is not required, to keep portions of such proposals confidential under exceptions 3. and 6. noted above. If a responding individual or company in good-faith reasonably determines that a portion or portions of its proposal constitute a trade secret, or should otherwise be kept confidential to avoid giving advantage to competitors, a confidentiality request may be submitted with the proposal clearly identifying which portion or portions of the proposal or bid should be kept confidential and why. The burden will be on each individual proposer to make such confidentiality request and to justify application of a confidentiality exception to its proposal. The City will not under any circumstance consider the entire proposal to be a confidential record. If a request is thereafter made by a member of the public to examine a proposal including the portion or portions thereof for which a confidentiality request has been made, or a subpoena is served on the City requiring release of the designated confidential information, the City will so notify the proposer of the request or subpoena and will keep confidential that portion of the proposal covered by the confidentiality request, if it is legally able to do so pursuant to the subpoena, pending action by the proposer requesting confidentiality to defend its request. In that notification, the proposer requesting confidentiality will be given not more than 5 calendar days within which to file suit in Polk County District Court or other appropriate forum seeking the entry of a declaratory order and/or injunction to protect and keep confidential such portion of its proposal. Absent such action by a proposer requesting confidentiality, and absent the entry of a court order or final order or decision of the Iowa Public Information Board declaring such portion or portions of the proposal confidential, the entire proposal 15

16 will be released for public examination. Proposer shall be responsible for all costs relating to a declaratory judgment or injunctive action, including the payment of any damages assessed and attorney fees and litigation expenses awarded. If the process for selecting the best proposal includes two or more evaluation stages, in which proposals are evaluated at each stage and the field of competing proposals is reduced, all proposals submitted shall be kept confidential, pursuant to Section 22.7 of the Iowa Code, subsection 6 cited above, until completion of the final stage of the evaluation process in order to avoid giving advantage to competing proposers. Upon completion of the final stage in the evaluation process, all competing proposals shall be subject to disclosure, if not otherwise determined confidential as above provided. 9. Proposal to Include Only Market Available Equipment and Field Tested Software Unless Otherwise Provided (a) All equipment, features, and attachments which are proposed must have been formally announced for market purposes before the date the proposal is submitted to the City. (b) All proposer supplied programs/software referred to in the proposal must be field operational before the date the proposal is submitted, unless the services to be provided in response to the RFP include program/software development. (c) Demonstrations must utilize the proposed equipment, programs or software precisely as proposed. (d) Unless otherwise specified in the specifications, all items on which a proposer submits a proposal shall be new, of the latest model or manufacture and shall be at least equal in quality to that specified in the bidding documents. 10. Proposer Required to Identify Patented Equipment, Processes, Materials, or Hardware, and Copyrighted Text, Information, Data, or Software Included in Its Proposal; Proposer Required to Include with Its Proposal any Licenses Which City Will be Expected to Execute. (a) Proposers shall be required to identify any patented equipment, processes, materials, or hardware, or any copyrighted text, information, data, or software, which it proposes to supply as part of the goods it is required to provide under the RFP or which it proposes to supply as part of the services it is required to perform under the RFP. Every proposer shall likewise identify the licensing agent for such patented or copyrighted items, and shall provide with its proposal a copy of any licensing or use agreement which the City will be expected to execute for the use of such patented equipment, processes, materials, or hardware, or copyrighted text, information, data, or software included in a proposer's proposal, as well as the anticipated cost to the City, if any, for such use under license or agreement. The proposer to whom the contract is awarded shall be required to warrant that the intellectual property rights of third parties (copyright, trademark, or patent) will not be violated by the proposer's or City's use of any equipment, process or service provided in response to the RFP. (b) All software provided to the City pursuant to a proposer's proposal shall be fully documented. This documentation shall consist of pertinent technical documentation and operator documentation including the following, as applicable: Proprietary source code escrow option Database definitions and file structures; Variable descriptions, variable cross-references and subroutine calling sequences; Interface specifications; Requirements traceability matrix; Communication protocols including field device protocol; 16

17 Security documentation; System backup and recovery procedures; System operational procedures and error handling; Hard copy user manual segregated into chapters (or volumes) which group topics according to whether the software is used from TMC operator stations, from remote computers, and from either of the above; On-line user manual or help facility; Warrantees on software; and Licenses and liens. The proposer may use different methods for documentation if it provides sufficient information as determined by the City. All documentation shall be submitted to the City for final approval. (c) Source Code Escrow. Rights to intellectual property developed, utilized, or modified by the proposer in the performance of the services shall remain the property of the proposer. However, program source libraries, source code, flow charts of source code, database definitions, file structures, communications protocols, variable descriptions, variable cross-references, subroutine calling sequences, and other documentation are elements of the work product without which the City would be at a severe loss should the proposer be unable or unwilling to provide service for the life of the software. For this reason, the successful proposer shall, to the extent required by the RFP, be required to provide an independent escrow agent to handle such proprietary work product documentation which shall be transferred from escrow agent to the City in the event that the Contractor fails to provide service at a reasonable and justifiable price during the life span of the software. 11. Not used 12. Proposers to Provide Evidence of Ability to Obtain Insurance. If insurance is required by this RFP, each proposer shall be required to provide evidence satisfactory to the City that it can obtain the required insurance coverages. For this purpose, each proposer shall submit with its proposal the certification form appended to this RFP as Attachment 3, in which the proposer's insurance agent will be required to certify that the proposer can obtain the required insurance coverages. Failure to submit the required certification form shall be grounds for rejection of the proposal. 13. Evaluation and Selection Committee; Procedure for Evaluation and Recommendation as to Selection of Best Proposal. (a) Competing proposals submitted in response to the RFP shall be evaluated by an evaluation and selection committee appointed by the director of the department sponsoring the RFP. The evaluation and selection committee shall, at the department director's discretion, be composed of city staff members, consultant representatives if a consultant was utilized in formulating the RFP, and other persons deemed knowledgeable of the goods and/or services being procured. The evaluation and selection committee ("committee") will utilize the evaluation criteria and scoring methodology set forth in this RFP in making its determination as to the best proposal. (b) Upon completing its evaluation and the scoring of competing proposals, the committee shall make a written report of its determination and recommendation as to the selection of the best proposal. The report will be filed with the department director and Procurement Administrator, and the report and Notice of Intent to Award will be provided to all competing proposers by ordinary mail, FAX or e- 17

18 mail at the address, FAX number or address shown in their proposals at least 5 days prior to the appeal deadline set forth in the Notice of Intent to Award. 14. Appeal of Evaluation and Selection Committee Recommendation - Proposer Objections to be Submitted in Writing - Resolution of Proposer Objections. (a) Opportunity for Proposers to Appeal Evaluation Committee Recommendation as to Selection of Best Proposal - Required Submission in Support of Objection. A proposer who is aggrieved by the evaluation and selection committee's determination and recommendation as to the selection of the best proposal, as set forth in the committee's report, may appeal such determination and recommendation by filing a written objection thereto with the Procurement Administrator within the appeal deadline set forth in the Notice of Intent to Award. Such objections may be filed in person or by mail, FAX or . In its written objection, the appealing proposer shall set forth all of its objections to the committee's recommendation and all arguments in support thereof, and shall attach thereto all documentation supporting its objections which it intends to rely on in making its appeal. The appealing proposer may request a hearing on its appeal, but the determination whether to hold a hearing or to determine the appeal on the basis of the record made in the written objection shall be discretionary with the City Manager. Alternatively, the City Manager may, after the issuance of an RFP, authorize use of the alternative appeal procedure provided in section of the Des Moines Municipal Code where it is determined that use of the appeal procedure provided in this section will unduly delay the City's procurement of necessary goods and/or services. The City Manager's decision, made after the issuance of an RFP, to utilize this alternative appeal procedure shall be communicated to all proposers prior to or contemporaneously with the provision of the report of the evaluation and selection committee and Notice of Intent to Award. (b) City Manager or Hearing Officer to Review Proposer's Objections; Hearing Optional. Upon the timely filing of a written objection by an aggrieved proposer as above provided, the City Manager shall review such objection and determine if a hearing will be held to assist in determining the appeal. The City Manager shall likewise determine if the appeal will be determined by the City Manager or if it will be determined by an appeal officer selected by the City Manager. If the City Manager decides that the appeal will be decided pursuant to an appeal hearing, the City Manager or appeal officer shall set the time, date, and place of a hearing on such objection, and shall cause written notification of the hearing to be provided to the appealing proposer and all proposers. The City Manager may set for hearing at the same time, date, and place the objections of two or more proposers. Upon the request of an objecting proposer, the hearing may for good cause shown be rescheduled, provided that the hearing is held not more than 10 days after the filing of the written objection. In the appeal, the burden of persuasion shall be upon the appealing proposer. If a hearing is held, the appealing proposer shall be required to present its evidence first, and shall be entitled to examine the chair of the evaluation and selection committee, or such other member as may then be available. The hearing shall be electronically recorded, and upon the prior approval of the City Manager or appeal officer, the appealing proposer may at its expense cause the proceedings to be reported and transcribed. A transcription of the proceedings shall be made available to the City at no cost. For purposes of this appeal provision, the Deputy City Manager may act in the absence or unavailability of the City Manager. (c) Report of City Manager or Hearing Officer to City Council and to Appealing Proposer Upon completing the review of the appealing proposer's written objection, or upon the conclusion of the hearing, the City Manager or the designated hearing officer shall make a written report setting forth the determination of the appeal. All objections made by the appealing proposer shall either be affirmed or overruled. The report shall immediately be forwarded to the appealing proposer. 18