HomeMy WebLinkAbout26 - Notice of Awards - Planning & Development Permitting Fee AnalysisPlanning Fee Study RFP Scoring Sheet - Erin George
Selection Criteria:
1
2
3
4
5
Project Approach & Related Experience - 40 Points
Clarity and feasibility of proposed methodology (10)
Relevance and quality of prior projects, including similar municipal fee studies (10)
Examples of alternative or innovative fee structures implemented or evaluated (10)
Demonstrated ability to address full scope of services, including cost recovery, overhead, and multi-department coordination (10)
Subtotal
Qualifications of Firm & Project Team - 20 Points
Direct experience of proposed team members on similar projects (10)
Demonstrated capacity to complete work on time and meet deliverable quality (5)
Education, certifications, and relevant professional expertise (5)
Subtotal
Familiarity and/or Previous Experience with Montana Municipalities - 5 Points
Knowledge of Montana statutes, municipal processes, and community context (5)
Subtotal
Proposed Schedule & Capability to Meet Required Schedule - 15 Points
Realism of schedule and resource allocation (10)
Ability to meet the desired timeline (5)
Subtotal
Cost Proposal - 20 Points
Reasonableness relative to scope (5)
Lowest-to-highest cost scoring (15)
The lowest-cost proposal receives full points. Other proposals receive proportionally fewer points based on their cost relative to the lowest proposal.
Subtotal
Total Points Awarded (out of 100 possible)
FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES
Points
10
6
5
7
28
6
5
3
14
4
4
5
4
9
4
5
9
64
Notes
Proposed method & schedule is clear & organized. Understand the project - multi-dept review, improving cost recovery to lessen General Fund subsidy. Like their mention of
balancing fluctuating permit volumes, equity, applicant burden & fiscal sustainability (they get the bigger picture). Also phased implementation option.
Proposed model options are intriguing. Includes Excel tool to update in future.
RTA & LSU projects comparable CoS projects but not permitting. 2 Missoula projects likely more policy than financial. No examples of exactly this type of
project.
Chase has most relevant CoS experience on financial side; Emily has MT & permitting experience but heavy on policy. Missoula STR project much less complex type of fee structure, and
housing project similar to Bzn AHO incentives. Chase has relevant experience & accredited financial modeler. Question need for attorney with her high
hourly rate.
Missoula experience on STR fee study; one MT-based person on project
440 hours seems very high and I question attorney's hours as we didn't ask for legal review.
$76,303
440 hours at an average rate of about $173/hour
Four months of work
MATRIX
Points
8
9
5
9
31
8
5
3
16
4
4
8
5
13
5
15
20
84
Notes
Described approach is oddly long with 11 phases but seems fine. Not much mention of cost recovery until the end. They do seem to understand the project, mentioning all aspects of costs
including multi-dept reviews, overhead and indirect costs. Have done fee studies for many cities, including planning. Would like to see example of a planning fee study
to gauge level of detail as some of their descriptions seem general.
Team members have worked on fee studies for other cities, also impact fee studies & cost allocation plans. 2 team members have math or economics
education, others planning or public admin. No resumes; 2 analysts who would do most of the hours seem light on experience.
I'm concerned a team member (who they're relying on for MT knowledge) is on a Bozeman Advisory Board as they would get an inside look at finances. Past knowledge working
in Bozeman CD Dept could be good or bad, depending on attitude.
One MT-based person lives in Bozeman and previously worked for city & county. She was not Planning Director at Bozeman though, she was a Planner, so that is inaccurate. Current parks/rec
fee study project with Great Falls.
118 hours may be a tad low, but if they've done lots of these studies it could be enough.
$20,500
118 hours at an average rate of about $173/hour
Four months of work
MGT IMPACT SOLUTIONS, LLC
Points
10
10
5
10
35
10
5
5
20
1
1
9
5
14
5
12
17
87
Notes
Methodology in 5 tasks is clear, organized.
Includes custom Excel cost model for City use.
Understand & accurately describe multi-dept review, cost calcs.
Like their clear description in intro, i.e. description of peer cities, "going beyond fee schedules to understand what the fees support, how costs are allocated, and how peer models
function in practice."
Largest number of fee study examples across 12 states; appear most comprehensive - multi-dept CoS fee studies, including peer city analyses. Wonder if we could get an example of one
to verify, as it's odd they provide feedback quotes without who they're from.
Multiple team members have financial degrees and backgrounds, some with municipal background. Multiple team members have worked on complex multi-dept permit
fee studies just like this one.
All projects in other states. Mention higher education study for MSU & MT school districts but no detail provided.
Bigger firm, done this many times so they shouldn't have a problem managing schedule, being on time.
$29,131
122 hours at an average rate of about $238/hour
Four months of work Quote is based on 2 full rounds of edits; more would increase price.
Planning Fee Study RFP Scoring Sheet - Rebecca Harbage
Selection Criteria:
Interview Questions
1
2
3
4
5
Project Approach & Related Experience - 40 Points
Clarity and feasibility of proposed methodology (10)
Relevance and quality of prior projects, including similar municipal fee studies (10)
Examples of alternative or innovative fee structures implemented or evaluated (10)
Demonstrated ability to address full scope of services, including cost recovery, overhead, and multi-department coordination (10)
Subtotal
Qualifications of Firm & Project Team - 20 Points
Direct experience of proposed team members on similar projects (10)
Demonstrated capacity to complete work on time and meet deliverable quality (5)
Education, certifications, and relevant professional expertise (5)
Subtotal
Familiarity and/or Previous Experience with Montana Municipalities - 5 Points
Knowledge of Montana statutes, municipal processes, and community context (5)
Subtotal
Proposed Schedule & Capability to Meet Required Schedule - 15 Points
Realism of schedule and resource allocation (10)
Ability to meet the desired timeline (5)
Subtotal
Cost Proposal - 20 Points
Reasonableness relative to scope (5)
Lowest-to-highest cost scoring (15)
The lowest-cost proposal receives full points. Other proposals receive proportionally fewer points based on their cost relative to the lowest proposal.
Subtotal
Total Points Awarded (out of 100 possible)
What will be your individual roles on this project?
Please describe a comparable cost of services study you completed. (fee structure, number of permit types, cost recovery goals, etc.) What conclusions did you draw and did the study
result in any changes to the fee amounts, cost recovery rate, or the fee structure itself?
Have you advised a city through implementation of a new permitting fee structure? If so, please explain why the change was needed and how the new structure was implemented. If not, please
describe an example of an alternative or innovative permitting fee structure that you have seen cities use. What worked about it, what didn’t work, and why?
Please tell us more about the financial model(s) you use and the data inputs that will be required from the City, especially as they relate to specificity of staff time tracking. For
context, the City of Bozeman does not require staff to track their time to specific projects or tasks. How do you work around limitations like this when quantifying cost of services?
How will you manage workload to ensure for quality and on time completion of the work?
Biggest challenge for the city on these projects?
Questions for follow up reference checks:
How were they to work with?
How was their communication?
Were you happy with the end product?
Any red flags?
FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES
Points
10
5
5
5
25
8
3
3
14
5
5
5
3
8
4
5
9
61
Notes
Full response is 48 pages. Five phase methodology is clear and seems feasible. I'm confident they understand the assignment, including final synthesis and presentation to Commission.
Likes:
- what peer benchmarking could contribute - surcharges, expedited review, realistic recovery targets, tierd complexity models
- proposal to build a fee model using Excel that city can continue to use after study as needed.
Dislike that prior project examples do not show that they have completed comprehesive fee studies on this scale before. Examples are more targeted to certain policies or types of fees.
Also, almost all examples showcase work by the assigned staff before they joined this firm. Feels a little plug and play for the cost - we'll do all the data gathering, send it to
them and they plug it into their model?
Firm located in LA, founded in 2005, 25 employees; propose to work with CBH, a relatively new solo business; identify a team of 5 who will contribute to this project, including an attorney
advisor; both key staff have experience working for and with municipal or regional governments. Financial modeler has developed tools for >50 agencies (education is in history?). Project
Manager has 4 years experience with Missoula as Housing Policy Spec., (education is in social work).
Cite experience working with Missoula; one Montana-based staffer assigned to project previously worked for Missoula to analyze fees and cost of service; direct experience working for
a Montana city should mean more familiarity with recent legislative changes to land use policy;
Proposing a 5 phase approach; the bulk of the work (Phases 2-4) will happen in June & July. Schedule suggests one team member will commit 75+50+40 hours during those phases, which is
about 20 hours/week for two months. No documentation of other, potentially competing, workload is provided. Not entirely clear why attorney/advisor will be putting in significant hours
on assessing fee schedule and reporting out to commission. Compared to the other two proposals, this one proposes a much more significant time investment (more than double!). Is it
realistic? Does it better reflect the level of detailed analysis we're looking for?
Total cost: $76,303 (highest cost proposal)
440 hours at an average rate of about $173/hour
Four months of work
MATRIX
Points
10
10
8
8
36
10
3
5
18
5
5
7
3
10
5
15
20
89
Kushboo - VP, 14 years with firm with financial services and operations, project manager, doing more of the synthesis and higher level thinking and presenting
Allyson - helping with expertise in development review; sounds like Allyson and Kushboo will be on all meetings; would want to discuss with city attorney to address any potential conflicts
Jaymee & Anna - additional analysts, helping with meetings and model development, peer comparisons
"Fee studies are not super complicated, it's rate times time." But need to look at nuances that are specific to your city. Example: Kenmore, WA. Study focused on building, planning,
and engineering. Captured cross-departmental support on planning applications, looked at appropriate methodologies such as combined or separate fee schedules. Considered deposit vs.
flat fees (deposit being more flexible to charge more based on actual project review).
It's rare to see 100% cost recovery in planning because there is so much conceptual work that goes into it. Difficult for people to understand the level of thought that it involves.
Deposit-based fee system. How staff have ability to bill to the deposit. Need to have policies and procedures in place to bill at the correct hourly rate, how to stop at a certain threshold,
how to build in any waivers or discounts. Allowing policy makers to decide areas to subsidize.
Models are Excel-based. Formulas will be included for transparency. Will require data like: adopted budget/salaries/benefits/funding/annual application volume by type/
Want to see where we're over/under charging, and what the financial impact of that is based on how many of that type we process. Model allows for increases (like annual inflation).
95% of fee studies do not start with robust time tracking. They can rely on their database to know about how much each step of the process takes and vet with staff. They try to understand
and document why things take the time they take. That's beneficial to be able to know how things would change if our processes were to change in the future.
Quality control systems in place to reconcile financials, investigate variances, adjust as needed. Can get started within 2 weeks of final agreement. Biweekly updates via email or meetings.
Initial conversations help set them on the right path, then they check in regularly, provide interim deliverables, adjust approach as needed.
Notes
Full response is 20 pages. The 11 task methodology makes sense and is feasible. They seem to understand the assignment, including fee structure, direct and indirect costs, and multi-department
reviews. Nice to see they have reviewed planning (and other) fees for lots of other jurisdictions - 13 for planning fees - shows they understand what's involved, what pitfalls they
may encounter, etc. Prior projects are directly relevant. Likes:
- note about minimizing staff burden, they take the lead on data collection, nice to see list of data collection items spelled out so we can prep
- development of editable Excel-based model
- proposal to gather time estimates from staff via workshops
- understanding of our review process steps
Unsure if any examples are really very innovative, but I like the example where they assessed a completed fee study to identify weaknesses.
Firm located in CA, founded in 2002, 32+ employees; Office location in Bozeman with one member of the team located here who has previously worked for the City and for Gallatin County;
team of 4 includes a project manager VP with 13 years experience and >200 cost of service studies; key analyst has a Math degree with focus in data science as well as an Econ degree.
No real discussion about ability to complete work on time at expected quality.
Experience with Montana laws, team member living in Bozeman who has previously worked for the city and county, current project with Great Falls
Schedule of 11 tasks laid out over 4+ months; we will need to be ready to furnish necessary data within the first few weeks after signing contract! No discussion of other workload and
wether staff have the ability to commit the necessary time, but only proposing a total of 118 hours spread across 4 months and 4 team members. I'm not sure it's realistic to expect
the project manager will only commit 0-2 hours on some tasks since her role is described as including leading meetings.
Total cost: $20,500
118 hours at an average rate of about $173/hour
Four months of work
MGT IMPACT SOLUTIONS, LLC
Points
8
10
6
8
32
10
5
5
20
0
0
9
5
14
5
12
17
83
Parul - director of fiscal team, 13 years of experience at firm, role isessentially oversight to ensure successful project delivery
Mike - based in CA, supporting project as day to day project manager for team
Diana - based in CA, 10 years experience in fee studies, SME, supporting and advising related to costing model
Trevor & Tyler - additional consultants, will help with peer comparisons, meetings, etc.
Mostly have worked in states across the West - CA, AZ
Difficult to draw an overall conclusion because all cities seem to be quite different. Deposits and an hourly fee based on tracking time -> MGT developed recommendations totransition
to some flat fees. Oakland example: 155 separate fees, desire for 100% cost recovery (not always the case). Buckeye, CA example: 75 separate fees, no desire for a drastic change, cost
recovery goal was 75%.
They will work with City on a plan to phase things in, especially where there may be drastic changes. Could use the model to forecast different revenue scenarios and make related fee
recommendations.
They try to design a fee structure that aligns with the place, meets Bozeman's needs. They have lots of examples to draw from, but will follow the city's lead on selecting what works
for us. The team seems very experienced and knowledgeable, comfortable with the ask and familiar with development permitting work - process and challenges.
Example to walk through the model: city with just 9 existing fees.The data we provide helps them ask the right questions. Initial Data: permit type/annual volume/current fee/full cost/cost
recovery % --> look at the outliers where the cost recovery is farthest from the norm. Did we miss something, are there additional reviews, etc.? Lump some positions together (planner/senior
planner for example)
They don't need actual time tracking, instead rely on professional experience. But may dig into areas that don't seem quite right. Most important is the volume - what amount of work
is coming in/going out every year? Through the study, they'll identify the utilization rate of certain staff on fee projects.
Team approach, they share the burden so it's not all on one person's shoulders. Try to all be on the meetings so they're all aware of what's going on, how to step in and help. They can
go as fast as the client can go or wants to go. Willing to schedul regular status check-ins to keep things moving.
Developing the initial time estimates. Recommendation is to gather everyone to sit down together and knock it out together (so we're using same assumptions). Don't worry about getting
it perfect the first time.
Notes
Full response is 33 pages. Workplan includes 5 main tasks. It is clear and seems feasible. They seem to understand the cross-department reviews, goal of increasing cost recovery while
keeping fees manageable for customers. Proposal specifically states that prior projects are similar in scope and complexity and they seem to be directly relevant. Likes:
- cost is a fact, price is a policy decision
- city keeps a customized Excel cost model to update in the future
- actually mention business licenses and STRs!
- lots of time dedicated to refining and staff review of drafts
- standard status update example
- positive to see multiple cities re-hire them
Proposal states that they have performed these studies in Montana, but no Montana cities are listed. Proposal very generic. I would have preferred more information about their recent
work. I'm not convinced anything will be innovative.
Very large firm based in FL, over 50 years experience, team of over 1,200; identify a team of 5 with relevant education and experience working on numerous similar projects. Large firm
suggests they would be able to identify backup staff if others need to be assigned to complete deliverables on time.
All reference projects were in CA. No Montana municipalities listed in examples of similar work. Mention of working with school districts and MSU but no detail provided about what that
work entailed and whether it would be relevant.
Based on the firm's size and experience, I have no doubt they know how to plan their time and would complete the work on time. I think they will have high expectations of city staff
to be responsive and decisive to keep the project moving on schedule and I appreciate that they have been around the block enough to lay out certain assumptions. Significantly more
expensive per hour than other two proposals.
Total cost: $29,131
122 hours at an average rate of about $238/hour
Four months of work
Planning Fee Study RFP Scoring Sheet - Nicholas Ross
Selection Criteria:
1
2
3
4
5
Project Approach & Related Experience - 40 Points
Clarity and feasibility of proposed methodology (10)
Relevance and quality of prior projects, including similar municipal fee studies (10)
Examples of alternative or innovative fee structures implemented or evaluated (10)
Demonstrated ability to address full scope of services, including cost recovery, overhead, and multi-department coordination (10)
Subtotal
Qualifications of Firm & Project Team - 20 Points
Direct experience of proposed team members on similar projects (10)
Demonstrated capacity to complete work on time and meet deliverable quality (5)
Education, certifications, and relevant professional expertise (5)
Subtotal
Familiarity and/or Previous Experience with Montana Municipalities - 5 Points
Knowledge of Montana statutes, municipal processes, and community context (5)
Subtotal
Proposed Schedule & Capability to Meet Required Schedule - 15 Points
Realism of schedule and resource allocation (10)
Ability to meet the desired timeline (5)
Subtotal
Cost Proposal - 20 Points
Reasonableness relative to scope (5)
Lowest-to-highest cost scoring (15)
The lowest-cost proposal receives full points. Other proposals receive proportionally fewer points based on their cost relative to the lowest proposal.
Subtotal
Total Points Awarded (out of 100 possible)
FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES
Points
10
6
8
7
31
5
4
3
12
3
3
9
4
13
5
10
15
74
Notes
Clearest and best description of methodology, cost recovery models, and deliverables. Requires a leap of trust to apply experience to our specific project.
Distinct lack of CoS experience
Similar to Matrix, one subject matter expert with MT muni experience but overall lack of CoS experience in MT.
Cost estimate closer to what I expected for this effort.
MATRIX
Points
9
7
8
10
34
8
4
4
16
3
3
9
4
13
3
15
18
84
Notes
Strong methodology and attention to all cost of service inputs. Reasonable, not exceptional scale of past clients for similar services. Interested in learning more about the "deposit
fee" structure referenced.
good not great quals and staffing
Some concern that Brekke was here in a much different era and the firm otherwise lacks demonstrated Montana experience.
Hour estimate within schedule duration implies substantial flexibility
Proposed level of effort implies significant staff time will be necessary
MGT IMPACT SOLUTIONS, LLC
Points
8
9
6
9
32
9
4
4
17
2
2
9
4
13
3
12
15
79
Notes
Reference to utilization rates in their approach is interesting, but i'm not sure we're set up to easily provide. Some task labels don't appear to line up with subtasks? Significant
project experience. No real discussion of alternative models.
strong resumes and experience
little direct history in montana
Hour estimate within schedule duration implies substantial flexibility
Proposed level of effort implies significant staff time will be necessary
Planning Fee Study RFP Scoring Sheet - Melissa Hodnett
Selection Criteria:
1
2
3
4
5
Project Approach & Related Experience - 40 Points
Clarity and feasibility of proposed methodology (10)
Relevance and quality of prior projects, including similar municipal fee studies (10)
Examples of alternative or innovative fee structures implemented or evaluated (10)
Demonstrated ability to address full scope of services, including cost recovery, overhead, and multi-department coordination (10)
Subtotal
Qualifications of Firm & Project Team - 20 Points
Direct experience of proposed team members on similar projects (10)
Demonstrated capacity to complete work on time and meet deliverable quality (5)
Education, certifications, and relevant professional expertise (5)
Subtotal
Familiarity and/or Previous Experience with Montana Municipalities - 5 Points
Knowledge of Montana statutes, municipal processes, and community context (5)
Subtotal
Proposed Schedule & Capability to Meet Required Schedule - 15 Points
Realism of schedule and resource allocation (10)
Ability to meet the desired timeline (5)
Subtotal
Cost Proposal - 20 Points
Reasonableness relative to scope (5)
Lowest-to-highest cost scoring (15)
The lowest-cost proposal receives full points. Other proposals receive proportionally fewer points based on their cost relative to the lowest proposal.
Subtotal
Total Points Awarded (out of 100 possible)
FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES
Points
10
3
5
5
23
0
5
5
10
3
3
5
5
10
3
0
3
49
Notes
Appreciate their step 1 to define success and that they brought up high level policy issues that could be impactful as important to start with. They understand housing incentives, not
super relevent but innovative projects. They did not show a real understanding of the cross departmental work required.
What am I missing, these are all housing specialists and one financial modeler?
More housing incentive focused
Hours estimate cannot be realistic.
76303
55803
40.8314634146341
-25.8314634146341
MATRIX
Points
8
10
5
8
31
10
5
5
20
5
5
10
5
15
5
15
20
91
Notes
Relevent projects where cost components were excluded from prior studies. They briefly mention cross departmental support. Tiered example in Raleigh was interesting / innovative.
Former City planning director on proposed team
20500
15
1366.66666666667
MGT IMPACT SOLUTIONS, LLC
Points
9
8
0
8
25
5
5
5
15
0
0
10
5
15
5
8.68
13.68
68.68
Notes
Showed that they understand the issues in Bozeman.
Hard to judge, most of the staff resumes list projects by location but not type. Most of the directors experience was cost allocation plans. Only one of the proposed staff was on a project
listed as a reference project.
All CA projects.
29131
8631
6.31536585365854
8.68463414634146
Planning Fee Study RFP Scoring Sheet
Selection Criteria:
1
2
3
4
5
Project Approach & Related Experience - 40 Points
Erin
Rebecca
Nick
Melissa
Average Points
Qualifications of Firm & Project Team - 20 Points
Erin
Rebecca
Nick
Melissa
Average Points
Familiarity and/or Previous Experience with Montana Municipalities - 5 Points
Erin
Rebecca
Nick
Melissa
Average Points
Proposed Schedule & Capability to Meet Required Schedule - 15 Points
Erin
Rebecca
Nick
Melissa
Average Points
Cost Proposal - 20 Points
Erin
Rebecca
Nick
Melissa
Average Points
Total Points Awarded (out of 100 possible)
Erin
Rebecca
Nick
Melissa
Average Score
Franklin
28
25
31
23
26.75
14
14
12
10
12.5
4
5
3
3
3.75
9
8
13
10
10
9
9
15
3
9
64
61
74
49
62
Matrix
31
36
34
31
33
16
18
16
20
17.5
4
5
3
5
4.25
13
10
13
15
12.75
20
20
18
20
19.5
84
89
84
91
87
MGT
35
32
32
25
31
20
20
17
15
18
1
0
2
0
0.75
14
14
13
15
14
17
17
15
13.68
15.67
87
83
79
68.68
79.42
Summary of Scorer Notes
Summary of Scorer Notes
Summary of Scorer Notes
Summary of Scorer Notes
Summary of Scorer Notes
Compiled Scoring & Notes for MGT
Project Approach & Related Experience - 40 Points
Scorer 1
Scorer 2
Scorer 3
Scorer 4
Average Points
Qualifications of Firm & Project Team - 20 Points
Scorer 1
Scorer 2
Scorer 3
Scorer 4
Average Points
Familiarity and/or Previous Experience with Montana Municipalities - 5 Points
Scorer 1
Scorer 2
Scorer 3
Scorer 4
Average Points
Proposed Schedule & Capability to Meet Required Schedule - 15 Points
Scorer 1
Scorer 2
Scorer 3
Scorer 4
Average Points
Cost Proposal - 20 Points
Scorer 1
Scorer 2
Scorer 3
Scorer 4
Average Points
Totals
Scorer 1
Scorer 2
Scorer 3
Scorer 4
Average Total Points (out of 100 possible)
35
32
32
25
31
20
20
17
15
18
1
0
2
0
0.75
14
14
13
15
14
17
17
15
13.68
15.67
87
83
79
68.68
79.42
Methodology in 5 tasks is clear, organized.
Includes custom Excel cost model for City use.
Understand & accurately describe multi-dept review, cost calcs.
Like their clear description in intro, i.e. description of peer cities, "going beyond fee schedules to understand what the fees support, how costs are allocated, and how peer models
function in practice."
Largest number of fee study examples across 12 states; appear most comprehensive - multi-dept CoS fee studies, including peer city analyses. Wonder if we could get an example of one
to verify, as it's odd they provide feedback quotes without who they're from.
Full response is 33 pages. Workplan includes 5 main tasks. It is clear and seems feasible. They seem to understand the cross-department reviews, goal of increasing cost recovery while
keeping fees manageable for customers. Proposal specifically states that prior projects are similar in scope and complexity and they seem to be directly relevant. Likes:
- cost is a fact, price is a policy decision
- city keeps a customized Excel cost model to update in the future
- actually mention business licenses and STRs!
- lots of time dedicated to refining and staff review of drafts
- standard status update example
- positive to see multiple cities re-hire them
Proposal states that they have performed these studies in Montana, but no Montana cities are listed. Proposal very generic. I would have preferred more information about their recent
work. I'm not convinced anything will be innovative.
Reference to utilization rates in their approach is interesting, but i'm not sure we're set up to easily provide. Some task labels don't appear to line up with subtasks? Significant
project experience. No real discussion of alternative models.
Showed that they understand the issues in Bozeman.
Multiple team members have financial degrees and backgrounds, some with municipal background. Multiple team members have worked on complex multi-dept permit
fee studies just like this one.
Very large firm based in FL, over 50 years experience, team of over 1,200; identify a team of 5 with relevant education and experience working on numerous similar projects. Large firm
suggests they would be able to identify backup staff if others need to be assigned to complete deliverables on time.
strong resumes and experience
Hard to judge, most of the staff resumes list projects by location but not type. Most of the directors experience was cost allocation plans. Only one of the proposed staff was on a project
listed as a reference project.
All projects in other states. Mention higher education study for MSU & MT school districts but no detail provided.
All reference projects were in CA. No Montana municipalities listed in examples of similar work. Mention of working with school districts and MSU but no detail provided about what that
work entailed and whether it would be relevant.
little direct history in montana
All CA projects.
Bigger firm, done this many times so they shouldn't have a problem managing schedule, being on time.
Based on the firm's size and experience, I have no doubt they know how to plan their time and would complete the work on time. I think they will have high expectations of city staff
to be responsive and decisive to keep the project moving on schedule and I appreciate that they have been around the block enough to lay out certain assumptions. Significantly more
expensive per hour than other two proposals.
Hour estimate within schedule duration implies substantial flexibility
Quote is based on 2 full rounds of edits; more would increase price.
Total cost: $29,131
122 hours at an average rate of about $238/hour
Four months of work
Proposed level of effort implies significant staff time will be necessary