PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMITTEE"

Olivia Montgomery
5 years ago
Views:

1 On THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2018 the PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority met at the Carl T. Langford Board Room, One Jeff Fuqua Boulevard, Orlando, FL Vice Chair Ruohomaki called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. The meeting was posted in accordance with Florida Statutes and a quorum was present. Committee Members present: Davin Ruohomaki, Vice Chair Kathleen Sharman, Chief Financial Officer David M. Patterson, Director of Construction Gary Hunt, Director of Maintenance Also present: John Newsome, Chief Information Officer Robert Alfert, Legal Counsel (Broad & Cassel) Kathy Anderson, Contracts and Grants Pam L Heureux, Finance Pete Pelletier, Information Technology Joe Furnari, Information Technology Carlos Baez, Information Technology Lewis Felker, Information Technology Margie Callahan, Unified Communications George Morning, Office of Small Business Development Debbie McKeown, Project Controls Shanna Alikhan, Recording Secretary Others present: Fior Mazara, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Meghann Kriss, Avcon, Inc. Oliver Oetterer, EPIC Engineering & Consulting Group, LLC Cheryl O Brien, Technology Management Corporation Regine Borrean, Technology Management Corporation Jessica Serra, Archis Technologies Rob Sweat, Archis Technologies Ty Brown, Archis Technologies Navin Jiawan, Archis Technologies Jeff Lohrman, AITC, Inc. Gabriel Ruiz, AITC, Inc. Courtney Powell, AceApplications, LLC Michael Zoia, Ross & Baruzzini, Inc. Frank Varona, Ross & Baruzzini, Inc. Zach Varwig, Faith Group, LLC Steve Ritter, The JW Group Inc. Ben Ellis, EZ, Inc. Leslie Ruiz, Barich, Inc. Niel Hahn, Hahn Integrated Systems LOBBYIST DISCLOSURE For individuals who conduct lobbying activities with Aviation Authority employees or Board members, registration with the Aviation Authority is required each year prior to conducting any lobbying activities. A statement of expenditures incurred in connection with those lobbying instances should also be filed prior to April 1 of each year for the preceding year. As of January 16, 2013, lobbying any Aviation Authority Staff who are members of any committee responsible for ranking Proposals, Letters of Interest, Letters of Interest or Bids and thereafter forwarding those recommendations to the Board and/or Board Members is prohibited from the time that a Request for Proposals, Request for Letters of Interests, Request for Qualifications or Request for Bids is released to the time that the Board makes an award. As adopted by the Board on September 19, 2012, lobbyists are now required to sign-in at the Aviation Authority offices prior to any meetings with Staff or Board members. In the event a lobbyist meets with or otherwise communicates with Staff or a Board member at a location other than the Aviation Authority offices, the lobbyist shall

2 Page 2 of 8 file a Notice of Lobbying (Form 4) detailing each instance of lobbying to the Aviation Authority within 7 calendar days of such lobbying. As of January 16, 2013, lobbyists will also provide a notice to the Aviation Authority when meeting with the Mayor of the City of Orlando or the Mayor of Orange County at their offices. The policy, forms, and instructions are available in the Aviation Authority s offices and the web site. Please contact the Director of Board Services with questions at (407) ANNOUNCEMENT Any appeals of decisions made by the Professional Services Committee (PSC) must be filed with the Chief Executive Officer within five business days (no later than 4:00 p.m. on the fifth business day) of the rendition of that decision, except those that have issues under Contract, in which case the contract provisions supersede. CONSIDERATION OF FIRMS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR W372, SELECTION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE ORLANDO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, ORLANDO EXECUTIVE AIRPORT AND OTHER FACILITIES OPERATED BY THE AVIAITON AUTHORITY. 1. On February 22, 2018, the Professional Services Committee (PSC) of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority met to consider the responses to the above-referenced advertisement. The PSC voted to request supplemental information from the following ten proposers, to include but not limited to, completion of a compliance/expertise matrix, for the above-referenced services(in alphabetical order): Advanced IT Concepts, (AITC) Inc. AECOM Technical Services Applications Software Technology, LLC Barich, Inc. Cherry Road Technologies Faith Group Consulting, LLC Information Systems Consultants, Inc. Ross & Baruzzini Technology Management Corporation TekStream Solutions The Aviation Authority is seeking one or more Information Technology (IT) Consultants to provide a broad range of services associated with the planning and implementation of IT projects and initiatives that are identified in the Aviation Authority s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Information Technology Master Plan (ITMP), the Aviation Authority s annual project planning process, and other IT projects and initiatives requested by the Aviation Authority. The Services may include project management; staff augmentation; research of specific technologies; research and concept development; IT business analysis; business case development; infrastructure and applications design, installation, configuration, development and testing; database management and administration; cyber and physical security; development of solicitation documents; functional, performance and interface requirements definition and documentation project planning; applications development, implementation and integration across multiple systems; operations and management of IT; assistance with IT roadmap or strategic plans; vendor and product evaluations and recommendations and other IT consulting services. The PSC and staff had previously been furnished a copy of each SOQ along with the Advertisement, Submission Requirements, and other supporting documentation. Evaluation of the SOQs was based on the following:

3 Page 3 of 8 Comprehensive Approach Qualifications and Experience of Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience of Firm Commitment to DBE Participation Programs Insurance Financial Statements Licensure Claims Information References Vice Chair Ruohomaki requested that the Office of Small Business Development present its evaluation of the SOQs. Mr. Morning stated that Proposers were requested to provide written acknowledgments of their understanding of the DBE/MWBE/LDB/VBE Program and Policies. Furthermore, he stated that the Authority will establish MWBE, LDB, VBE or DBE Participation Goals for each Bid or Negotiated project or scope. Advanced IT Concepts, Inc. (AITC): AITC commits to meet or exceed the requirements. Additionally, the firm is DBE, MWBE, and VBE certified. AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM): AECOM commits to meet the requirements. Additionally AECOM did not list any VBE participation. Applications Software Technology, LLC (AST): Proposer did not list any subconsultant or identify possible scopes for DBE/LDB/MWBE/VBE firms' participation. Furthermore, AST s written statement indicated that AST will use its best efforts to engage such qualified organizations for each engagement." Barich, Inc. (BARICH): BARICH commits to meet or exceed the requirements. Proposer stated they would work to identify and utilize a Veteran Business Enterprise for inclusion and participation. Cherry Road Technologies, Inc. (CRT): CRT met the requirements; however, did not list any subconsultants or identify possible scopes for DBE/LDB/MWBE/VBE firms' participation. Faith Group Consulting, LLC (FGC): Proposer commits to meet or exceed the requirements and identified small companies to meet MWBE, LDB, and DBE. In addition, the firm is MWBE and DBE certified. Information Systems Consultants, Inc. (ISC): ISC commits to meet the requirements and listed firms to meet MWBE, LDB and DBE goals. In addition, the firm is MWBE and DBE certified. Ross & Baruzzini, Inc. (R&B): R&B commits to meet requirements but failed to mention the VBE Program. Technology Management Corporation dba Technology Management Corporation 1 Incorporated (TMC): TMC met the requirements and listed firms to meet MWBE, LDB and DBE. In addition, the firm is MWBE and DBE certified. TekStream Solutions, LLC (TEKSTREAM): Proposer met the requirements; however, did not list any subconsultant or identify possible scopes for DBE/LDB/MWBE/VBE firms' participation. Mr. Patterson inquired if all of the firms met the small business participation requirements. Mr. Morning confirmed yes.

4 Page 4 of 8 Ms. Sharman asked if AST and CRT met the small business participation requirements, given that they did not provide a list of proposed subconsultants to be used to fulfill the small business participation requirements. Mr. Morning stated that it was required for the firms to demonstrate an understanding and commitment to the small business requirements. Both AST and CRT provided an acknowledgement of their understanding and commitment; therefore, they satisfied the small business participation requirement for this procurement. Mr. Morning stated that the firms that listed their proposed subconsultants exceeded the small business requirements set forth. Ms. Sharman asked which of the firms confirmed that they understand and commit to the small business requirements without providing additional information. Mr. Morning stated that the three firms were AST, CRT, and TEKSTREAM. Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Morning to confirm which firms are DBE, MWBE, or VBE certified. Mr. Morning stated that the firms that are DBE, MWBE, and VBE certified are AITC, FGC, ISC, and TMC. Mr. Morning further stated that AITC is the only firm that is VBE certified. Vice Chair Ruohomaki requested that Legal Counsel present the insurance, licensure and claim evaluations, and elaborate on any exceptions found in the SOQs. Legal Counsel stated that insurance requirements for these services were established as follows: Professional Liability was established at a minimum of $1 Million per claim and annual aggregate with maximum deductible or self-insured retention in an amount not exceeding $10,000. Any deductible or self-insurance retention should be indicated on the Proposer s certificate of insurance. Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability were established at $5 Million per occurrence with a maximum deductible or maximum self-insured retention of $10,000. Legal Counsel stated that the Worker s Compensation Employer s Liability insurance requirements were established at statutory limits of $500,000. Legal Counsel reported that most of the Proposers met the insurance requirements with the exception of the following: Advanced IT Concepts, Inc. (AITC): AITC failed to provide Professional Liability coverage. Proposer s auto insurance does not cover owned vehicles. In addition, Commercial General Liability (CGL) and Automobile Liability insurance are at $1 Million per occurrence, with a $5 Million umbrella. If shortlisted, Proposer must submit evidence of its ability to provide adequate insurance coverage, either by means of an existing policy or Agent/Broker commitment letter. Proposer should provide $8 Million umbrella or increased Auto and (CGL) Liability limits to meet insurance requirement of $5 Million CGL and $5 Million Auto coverage. AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM): AECOM did not provide Worker s Compensation insurance. If shortlisted, Proposer must submit evidence of its ability to provide the adequate insurance coverage, either by means of an existing policy or Agent/Broker commitment letter. Applications Software Technology, LLC (AST): AST s Automobile Liability insurance does not cover owned vehicles. Barich, Inc. (Barich): Barich s Automobile Liability insurance does not cover owned vehicles.

5 Page 5 of 8 Faith Group Consulting, LLC (FGC): FGC s Automobile Liability insurance does not cover owned vehicles. Information Systems Consultants, Inc. (ISC): ISC s Automobile Liability insurance does not cover owned vehicles. Technology Management Corporation dba Technology Management Corporation 1 Incorporated (TMC): TMC did not provide Professional Liability coverage. In addition, TMC s Automobile insurance does not cover owned vehicles. Its CGL and Auto insurance levels are at $1 Million per occurrence, with a $4 Million umbrella. If shortlisted, TMC must provide adequate insurance coverage, either by means of an existing policy or Agent/Broker commitment letter. TMC should provide $8 Million umbrella or increased Auto and CGL limits to meet insurance requirement of $5 Million CGL and $5 Million auto coverage. TekStream Solutions, LLC (TEKSTREAM): TEKSTREAM s Automobile Liability insurance does not cover owned vehicles. Legal Counsel stated that further review will be done in regards to the Aviation Authority s requirements for Auto Insurance. Legal Counsel continued with the review of licensure and reported that all Proposers provided current and satisfactory licensure. Legal Counsel proceeded to review the claims information provided by the Proposers and stated that all of the Proposers provided adequate disclosure. Legal Counsel noted the following: AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM): AECOM made full disclosure of all claims. Legal Counsel stated that, given the size of the firm and the nature of the claims disclosed, there are no concerns regarding any of the claims. Legal Counsel continued with the discussion of the references provided by the Proposers and reported the following observations: Advanced IT Concepts, Inc. (AITC): Legal Counsel stated that it was extremely difficult to contact the reference provided. The U.S. Army Medical School provided a reference based on limited knowledge. One other reference was positive. AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM): AECOM provided a total of ten references. Six of the references responded and provided positive feedback. Applications Software Technology, LLC (AST): Three out of the five references provided by AST responded and provided positive comments. Barich, Inc. (BARICH): BARICH provided two prime references which responded with positive remarks. Cherry Road Technologies, Inc. (CRT): CRT provided three references and only one responded with positive remarks. Faith Group Consulting, LLC (FGC): FGC provided three references and all three responded with positive remarks.

6 Page 6 of 8 Information Systems Consultants, Inc. (ISC): ISC provided four references. The State of Indiana stated that actual employees did not meet expectations and that they would not consider hiring them again. The other responding reference provided positive remarks. Mr. Newsome stated that ISC has provided staff augmentation for the Aviation Authority and their performance has been acceptable. Ross & Baruzzini, Inc. (R&B): R&B provided five reference, four which responded with positive comments. Technology Management Corporation dba Technology Management Corporation 1 Incorporated (TMC): TMC provided two references, one responded with positive remarks. Mr. Newsome stated that TMC is one of the three incumbents at the Aviation Authority and they would hire them again. TekStream Solutions, LLC (TEKSTREAM): Legal Counsel stated that TEKSTREAM submitted no reference contact information. Vice Chair Ruohomaki asked Ms. L Heureux to provide the evaluation of the financial information provided. Ms. L Heureux noted that AECOM Technical Services, Inc.; Advanced IT Concepts, Inc.; Cherry Road Technologies, Inc.; Barich, Inc.; Faith Group Consulting, LLC; Information Systems Consultants, Inc.; Ross & Baruzzini, Inc.; and TekStream Solutions, LLC provided satisfactory financial information. Furthermore, Ms. L Heureux provided the following observations: Applications Software Technology, LLC (AST): The DNB PAYDEX score indicates that Applications Software Technology pays its bills 29 days beyond terms, slower than the average for its industry of 6 days beyond terms. In addition, the financial statements provided for Applications Software Technology, LLC reflect a negative working capital for both years. The notes to the financial statements indicate that a line of credit matured during February If shortlisted, AST must provide confirmation that the line of credit was extended. Technology Management Corporation dba Technology Management Corporation 1 Incorporated (TMC): The financial statements provided for TMC reflect a negative working capital for both years. If shortlisted, TMC must provide an explanation of how the company is managing the negative working capital. Vice Chair Ruohomaki requested staff s evaluation of the SOQs. Mr. Newsome briefed the PSC with the overall evaluation of the Proposers, reviewing the scope of services and the three main evaluative criteria. Mr. Newsome proceeded to state the three components to include technologies, products, and scope of services the firms offer. Mr. Newsome stated that the PSC voted on February 22, 2018 to recommend a second opportunity for the Proposers to submit supplementary information. On March 9, 2018 a matrix was provided to the firms showing each requirement listed under the scope of services and all of the functions they were to perform under technologies as well as products. The firms were to provide additional qualifying information next to each section within the matrix and were allowed to provide supplementary pages or reference their submittal for additional information. The supplemental information was received from the firms on April 19, 2018, and the second round of staff evaluations took place. Mr. Newsome referenced the colored matrix consisting of the evaluations of the firms for scope of services, technologies, and products. Mr. Newsome stated that the color

7 Page 7 of 8 green means that the firm exceeds the requirements; white means the firm met the requirements; yellow means the firm met some but not all of the requirements; and red means that it could not be determined if the firm met the requirements. Mr. Newsome reviewed the matrix and stated that there is a good amount of red. Mr. Newsome stated that the Proposers compensated each other in areas of weakness in comparison to another firms strengths. Mr. Newsome noted that AST and CRT proposed Oracle as the only technology with no expertise in any of the other areas required. Mr. Newsome stated that ISC and TEKSTREAM did not provide the qualifying experience. Mr. Newsome further stated that, to a significant extent, companies placed staff augmentation as opposed to handling the task orders for particular IT jobs themselves. Mr. Newsome stated that there were three firms that did not have any red items, which include BARICH, TMC, and FGC. Mr. Newsome made point to mention that AITC had one red in the products area, which was the result of working with the Department of Defense. Mr. Newsome stated that they only had experience with 19 of the 68 products, and further explained that they are the only Proposer who is a VBE certified firm. Vice Chair Ruohomaki asked if, with the anticipated work load, is there a clear dividing line categorizing the firms into a top tier and a bottom tier. Mr. Newsome stated that the Aviation Authority currently has three incumbents and it was anticipated to select three firms again. Mr. Newsome further stated that selecting more than three may result in a lack of utilization. Mr. Newsome stated that AITC had a good proposal, as well as being a VBE certified firm, and they would be open to considering them to move forward in the selection process. Mr. Newsome stated that, in his opinion, the top three firms are BARICH, FGC, and TMC. Vice Chair Ruohomaki agreed with Mr. Newsome s top three firms and encouraged selecting AITC to move forward as well. Mr. Patterson stated that he views the top three firms the same as Mr. Newsome and Vice Chair Ruohomaki. Mr. Patterson further stated that, in his opinion, there was a bottom tier consisting of three firms, which include AST, CRT, and TEKSTREAM. Mr. Patterson stated that, in the past, there was a fourth firm that the Aviation Authority could not get under contract due to conflicts among rates. Mr. Patterson inquired if there is a way to prevent that from occurring again. Legal Counsel stated no, and further explained that during the selection process rates cannot be entertained until a final ranking has been decided. Mr. Patterson asked if the purpose of today s meeting is to determine who would move forward to interview and presentation phase of the process. Legal Counsel confirmed yes. Mr. Patterson stated that he does have concern with limiting the selection down to three firms. Legal Counsel stated that two of the three firms are incumbents as well. Mr. Patterson stated that he does not see a problem with selecting AITC to proceed in the selection process. Ms. Sharman agreed with Mr. Patterson in terms of the bottom three firms and the top three firms. Ms. Sharman asked for further clarification on the difference between AITC and R&B, due to their similar ratings within the matrix. Mr. Newsome reviewed the color categorization criteria, and further explained that the difference between those two firms is based on the number of products and technologies that they have experience with. Mr. Hunt concurred with his fellow Committee Members on the top three firms, as well as the inclusion of the AITC, which is a VBE firm.

8 Page 8 of 8 Mr. Patterson inquired if the interview/ranking process was a requirement to select and rank the firms. Legal Counsel stated that this is not a CCNA procurement which mandates that the Aviation Authority proceed forward with the interview process, and it is at the Committee's discretion whether to go directly to ranking without having interviews and presentations. Vice Chair Ruohomaki stated that the Committee should move forward with the interviews of the top four selected firms. Legal Counsel stated that interviews do allow for new entities to provide additional information to the Committee. After further deliberations, the PSC concurred with staff's evaluation, and recommended shortlisting the following four firms that, through their SOQs, demonstrated, among other things, their ability to provide the advertised services, their prior experience on similar projects, their past performance, and their commitment to the Aviation Authority's Small Business Participation Programs. Upon motion of Mr. Hunt, second by Mr. Patterson, vote carried to shortlist the four firms listed below for further consideration for Professional Services for W372, Information Technology Consulting Services (in alphabetical order): Advanced IT Concepts, Inc. Barich, Inc. Faith Group Consulting, LLC Technology Management Corporation The PSC has set a meeting date of Thursday, May 31, 2018, to interview the shortlisted firms. Each firm will be provided 30 minutes for the interview process, Each firm will have up to 5 minutes to make its introduction to the PSC, 15 minutes to respond to the provided scenarios, following which the PSC will conduct a 10-minute question and answer session. Each firm must be represented by its proposed project manager and proposed principal representative of the firm. ADJOURNMENT 2. There being no further business for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 Tftr/fr Davin Ruohomaki, Vice Chair Professional Services Committee Senior Director of Planning, Engineering and Construction

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION AUTHORITY W374, NOTICE OF CONTINUING HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AT THE ORLANDO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, ORLANDO EXECUTIVE AIRPORT AND OTHER FACILITIES OPERATED BY THE GREATER