To the ValleyVote home
page To the LAFCO page1. Section 1.1.1, page 1-2 and Section 1.7.1, page 1-17. Please clarify LAFCO's intent in requesting separate not to exceed fee quotes for the San Fernando Valley Area and Harbor Area together and for the San Fernando Valley proposed special reorganization separately. Does this imply the potential for two separate consultants for two studies? Can LAFCO substitute sub-contractors without consultation of the prime contractor?
2. Section 1.1.4, page 1.3. The Government Code indicates that data used for the analysis shall be from the most recent fiscal year, provided that the data are not more than one fiscal year old. When the preceding data is unavailable, the RFP indicates that the analysis shall document the source and methodology for the data used. Please confirm that the consultant is responsible for extrapolating and forecasting data when original source data are unavailable. In addition, please indicate what the data and analysis process will be if the data sources are deemed to be unreliable? Does the preceding create litigation issues if the City data is unavailable?
3. Section 1.1.4, page 1-3. Government Code Section 56375.1 requires a reasonable reserve. Please define-2%, 5%, 10%?
4. Section 1.1.4, page 1-3 and 1-4. Government Code Section 56845 of the Cortese-knox Act requires revenue neutrality to the impacted cities. Does this requirement extend to other governmental entities providing services and receiving reimbursement?
5. Section 1.1.9, page 1-5. This section indicates that Parts 2 and 3 are incorporated into a prospective written Contract in their entirety. Will LAFCO consider amendments or other terms and conditions as proposed by the Consultant?
6. Section 1.1.10.1, page 1-5. The City of Los Angeles has prepared and submitted some data to LAFCO. Has the City indicated what information is readily available and what is not? To what extent is the information and data available electronically?
7. Section 1.1.10.1, page 1-5 and 1-6. Phases 1 and 2 prescribe specific timetables for completion of identified data requests and analysis. Will LAFCO permit flexibility or alternative time lines if data is unavailable or determine to be unreliable?
8. Section 1.1.10.1, page 1-6. Phase 3 indicates that each Draft CFA must withstand governmental agency and public scrutiny and sustain an audit by the State controller's office. What standards or audit guidelines will need to be satisfied?
9, Section 1.4.4, page 1-11 and Section 3,1, page 3-1. LAFCO details the Contract Sum and Limitation of Obligation Due to Non-Appropriation of Funds. Please confirm the total amount of funds appropriated to date. In addition, is there potential for future fiscal year appropriation of funds if funding requirements for the comprehensive fiscal analysis exceed current appropriated amounts? Finally, the RFP indicates that services shall be terminated as of June 30m of the last fiscal year for which funds were appropriated. What provisions are available if the consultant hours and fee obligations exceed the appropriated amounts prior to the June 30m fiscal year dose.
10. Section 1.4.2.1, page 1-11. This section prescribes an invoice and billing procedure that requires biffing in increments of 1/10th of an hour. This requirement could significantly increase the administrative costs of the project. Will an alternative billing procedure be considered?
11. Section 1.4.2.2, page 1-11. This section indicates that LAFCO will withhold 20% of all amounts due until receipt and acceptance of the Final CFAs. The time delay in payment could ultimately be more than 2 years. Will LAFCO consider an alternative withhold and/or alternative payment terms.
12. Section 1.6.5, page 1-15. The RFP require a detailed cost proposal with not to exceed fees for each phase of work. Can savings in some phases be used against overruns in other phases as long as the total for all phases is not exceeded?
13. Section 1.6.7, page 1-16, and referring back to Section 1.5.10.2, page 1-13. LAFCO is asking for compensation provisions for references and credentials. Unless they are public sector clients, this information is typically proprietary and confidential. Section 1.5.10.2 indicates that only "trade secrets" will be recognized as confidential. Are compensation provisions to non-public sector clients considered trade secrets?
14. Section 2.1.2, page 2-1. The RFP indicates that transportation outside of Los Angeles County shall be reimbursed at actual cost. Does this include travel and accommodation requirements for out-of-town consultants? If not, can different rates be quoted for in-town vs. out-of-town?
15. Section 2.1.3, page 2-1. This section references the consultant's office. Will LAFCO provide a workspace with phone, data hook-up, and photocopier?
16. Section 2.4.3, page 2-3. The RFP states that Consultant shall accept no employment that conflicts with its obligations to LAFCO under the contract. Please define what would constitute a conflict.
17. Section 3.16, page 3-6. Please define default. Is the Consultant at risk for default if information is not provided in a prescribed format or in a manner acceptable for analysis and review? Is default limited strictly to Consultant actions and not the cause of a third party?
18. Section 3.27, page 3-12. This section references Work With interested Parties. Please define what types of projects or contractual arrangements would be prohibited.
19. Is there any special legislation that is contemplated for the Special Reorganizations of the San Fernando Valley Area and Harbor Area of the City of Los Angeles? If yes, how will that affect the incorporation process?
20. With respect to the seven "Steps to Special Reorganization Study", when will it be determined the entity that will provide enterprise services (i.e., water and power, airports, port) to any successful reorganization area? Who will determine how the enterprise services are to be provided to successful special reorganization area?
21. Would LAFCO view an integrated proposal with a qualified environmental consultant more favorably than a proposal that does not include conducting the environmental work?
22. Given the anticipation of a multi-year process ranging from two to six years, how does LAFCO envision meeting Government Code Section 65833.1 that states, "Data used for the analysis shall be from the most recent fiscal year for which date are available, provided that the data are not more than one fiscal year old."
23. Although identified in the Valley Study Foundation's initial Identification of Needs for Data Collection (the data request), the RFP from LAFCO seems to exclude from the scope independent and proprietary departments, specifically: Department of Airports, Harbor Department, Department of Water and Power, City Employees Retirement Plan and Department of Pension. Will these areas in fact be excluded form the scope of work?
24. The data request includes Prop. A and Prop. C funds currently flowing primarily to the LACMTA. Are the operations of the LACMTA funded by these monies or any other element of the LACMTA, within the scope? Are Prop. A and Prop. C within the scope?
25. The data request asks for analyzed data form the City, specifically information regarding revenue, expenses, assets, liabilities, and other types of personnel data lying within or outside the geographic boundaries of the Valley, plus other types of analyzed data. For the purposes of the proposal, may we assume that the City will deliver the data analyzed as requested and that the consultant's role will be to assemble previously analyzed data (potentially to review it for (reasonability) but not to perform the fundamental underlying requested analysis.
26. The data request looks for the identification of assets and infrastructure lying geographically within the Valley. For purposes of the proposal can we assume that the consultant will NOT be responsible for developing or determining an independent valuation for these assets? If the consultant is to play a role in this valuation, how will LAFCO provide scoping information of sufficient detail that the level of effort can be estimated?
27. The data request looks for the identification of assets and infrastructure lying geographically outside the Valley. For purposes of proposal can we assume that the consultant will NOT be responsible for developing or determining an independent valuation for these assets? If the consultant is to play a role in this valuation, how will LAFCO provide scoping information of sufficient detail that the level of effort can be estimated? Is the concept of revenue neutrality expressed by Cortese Knox to be interpreted as the Valley Study Foundation has implied, to allows for a net asset value adjustment credit, separate from straightforward revenue and expenditure items.
28. Where asset valuation is impacted by a proposed use (i.e., vacant DWP land proposed for development by the City versus open space use that may be proposed by the Valley), which position will prevail: that of the current 'owner' (the City of Los Angeles) or the potential 'future owner' (the new City)?
29. Can the consultant assume for purposes of proposal that the level of materiality of any evaluation is limited to some percentage of total city revenues? That is, should analysis be conducted only for items which are in excess of X% (let's say 1% to 3%) of total city revenueslexpenditureslassets/liabilities. What specific guidance can LAFCO offer in this area to provide consistency among proposed approaches?
30. With regard to Phase 2, the consultant is required to review and to analyze the proposals of the applicants and the responses of the City. May we assume that each applicant will be limited to submitting only one proposal and that the City will be limited to submitting one response to each proposal?
31. With regard to Phase 2, the consultant is required to review and to analyze comments and responses submitted by "other affected parties." Can LAFCO provide any information about what "other affected parties' will have standing to submit such comments and responses? How can LAFCO keep the volume of comments and responses form "other affected parties' to a manageable number or will LAFCO not attempt to keep the number of comments to a manageable level?
32. With regard to Phase 1, in the Initial Fiscal Analysis, the consultant is required to assess cost and revenue impacts "based on possible alternative methods and variations in the organization and delivery of services by each of the new cities." Who will determine the number and character of these alternative methods and variations? Will the consultant be expected to identify relevant alternatives? Will LAFCO staff specify relevant alternatives? Or will the applicants be asked to specify these alternatives? How will the number of alternatives to be analyzed be kept to a manageable number?.
33. With regard to Phase 2, if review and analysis of applicants' proposals and City responses requires the collection or analysis of data beyond what was used for the Initial Fiscal Analysis completed in Phase 1, will the consultant be allowed to seek additional funding to support this additional effort?
34. Are their realistic prospects for additional funding if LAFCO chooses to exercise its option to extend the period and perhaps the scope of the study?
35. The RFP clearly requires analyzes of the revenue and cost implications of detachment. The RFP is less clear regarding valuations of important municipal assets. In some places it seems to imply that the consultant will be required to assess the value of some public assets. Can LAFCO clarify what it is seeking in this regard and which, if any assets are to be assessed?
36. Will the contract be a lump-sum contract or a time-and-expense contract with a not-to-exceed limit? If a lump-sum contract, will the monthly invoices be based on the completion of defined milestones or deliverables, or on a percent complete basis? If a lump-sum contract, then can we assume that monthly invoices do not need an itemization of labor costs by personnel?
37. While we understand that funds have been committed from the State, the County and the City for the reorganization study for the San Fernando Valley, is there a similar commitment for the harbor area reorganization study? Is there an estimate of the cost of the harbor area reorganization study? What is the total budget for the consulting team? What are the sources of this money? What is the prospect for additional funding if required?
38. Will environmental work be covered under a separate budget or be included in the funding pledged to date?
39. We understand that implementation costs need to be considered in the analysis. Will we be focused on a particular implementation strategy as defined by the applicant?
40. What role will the applicants and various community groups play in the process? How will the consulting team interface with the various constituents? Will the interface likely be different for each of the areas to be evaluated (the San Fernando Valley and the harbor area)?
41. Will the initial response and available data be accessible to the teams as we develop our budget for the proposal to be submitted to LAFCO in December?
42. What is the time line for applicant's proposals? How many parties are likely to respond?
43. Please describe the formal CFA review process? Who has jurisdiction? In what capacity? What is the time line for review?
44. How will the CEQA process interface with the preparation of the final CFA? Will they run in parallel with identical completion dates?
45. Are there formal MBE/WBE requirements?
46. How will the proposals be evaluated? What are the selection criteria and who will be on the evaluation team?
47. Can LAFCO provide a list of available information?
48. Will LAFCO approve study assumptions concerning the reorganizations prior to the fiscal analysis being started? (For example, are law enforcement costs to be based on contracts with the City of LA or the County Sheriff or a new department? What level of service (officers per 1,000 population) is appropriate?
49. Will LAFCO provide guidance as to land use assumptions that will be used for purposes of the initial study?
50. Our team includes several smaller firms and university representation. The public universities cannot be precluded from offering their services to the City of Los Angeles or others and the professors involved may not even be aware of an offering made by another professor or department to provide a service to an impacted agency. Can universities be exempted form this requirement?
51. Can the liabilities of the subcontractors be limited to the amount of their professional fees on the project?
52. The county is asking for $5 million per occurrence and $15 million aggregate liability insurance. We have never been asked for such a large amount and we have over 3,000 government clients. We can only provide $1 million and $2 million, with a $10 million excess liability coverage. Our subcontractors cannot always provide even this much. Can limitations more in line with the value of the work be proposed for consideration?
53. We are presuming that the County Counsel will serve as the primary legal source for routine governmental issues such as those based on employee agreements, only for areas of specialty such as water rights, is this what the County has in mind?
54. State legislation requires that the analysis be based on data from the most recent fiscal year. The RFP outlines a multi-year process. Does our budget need to include re-assessing the costs and revenues each time a newer fiscal year becomes available to LAFCO from the City? If so, how many of the potential 5 extra years should we presume may require a "re-basing" of the analysis?
55. You have requested a fixed budget and then added "may be required" tasks. Normally this means that we make these optional costs outside of the fixed price. In cases where the client's budget is fixed, we might agree to mutually select mandatory tasks to downsize/eliminate to make room within the budget for the optional task when/if it is selected. Which approach would you prefer in this case?
56. In our experience with similar projects, we have noted that delays often occur due to our client's reasonable desire to obtain maximum participation/response from the involved parties. When coupled with the fact that at least one of the parties may view the entire process as one which is best drawn out indefinitely, delays are almost to be expected. The up to 6 year period of the RFP obviously recognizes this potential. The delays caused by other parties should result in automatic extensions of the consultant's due dates, exempt from approval by the Executive Director.
57. You have asked for fixed prices and then outlined a process which can take from 2 years to 6 years. We presume that the fixed nature of the proposal would be based on completing all work within 2 years, with reasonable (CPI) or similar) escalators built in for delays, Is this acceptable?
58. You have required each phase to be a fixed price. While this is not general desirable for any future tasks, Phase 2 presents special problems as is calls for a fixed cost bid to review proposals and responses which have not yet been generated by the involved entities. Could this phase be bid as an estimate and/or have a reconfirmation once the proposals and responses are available to determine level of detail and complexity? For example, it is not clear at this time how much of the City's response would be direct at legal issues properly handled by County Counsel and how many to fiscal issues.
59. We plan to propose a multi-firm team.. We expect to estimate hours by task and thus by firm, but as the work actually evolves, we may need to shift hours between tasks and firms. Is this permitted?
60. In 1.4.2.2 you have requested a 20% hold back. This well exceeds our profit margin and is a significant concern to our smaller subs (and to ourselves as well). A normal withhold is typically set at 10% and the holding time in similar studies is mere like 6 months, not 6 years. If we estimate our borrowing cost at 10%, this withhold as written will increase the project bid price by 3% (20% withhold x 10% cost of money x 18 months avg. withhold period). Would you consider a 10% withhold as task invoices are submitted; half to be paid upon acceptance of the task, and half on successful completion of the Phase? This would permit 5% withhold for the duration of a Phase and an additional 5% until a task is accepted. If this is not acceptable, can bidders terms as part of their proposal for negotiation with the initially selected firm?
61. We simply cannot agree to liquidated damages in projects of this type (where we lack control of the schedule). Is this what the county intends?
62. You have provided in paragraph 1.5.6 and in the certification that exceptions are not permitted to the terms and conditions. You have then set so many conditions that almost any firm would have one or more exceptions. It seems to us that the County has a fairly fixed budget, a project that is likely to bring consulting firms into conflict with at least one major current/potential client (City of Los Angeles), and a fairly undefined and never before performed set of tasks. However, LAFCO is acting like this is the procurement of clearly defined set of activities and a highly desirable contract. We would suggest that it is everyone's best interest to allow firms to take exception to specific provisions of the contract and then rely on the selection committee and staff to select the firm(s) which they believe can best meet the needs of the citizens. Would the County consider changing these provisions and generally making this more like an RFQ and less like buying steel?
63. In 1.6.6 you require proposing firms to list all recent engagements with "impacted" agencies. To the extent that LAFCO considers this to include entities other than applicants and the City of Los Angeles, please provide us with is list of the specific other organizations you perceive to be potentially impacted.
64. In 1.7.8, you provide for the ability to revise scope, etc. to meet budgetary constraints. Ignoring for a moment the Harbor aspects of the study's costs, it appears to us that the Commission really wants the best proposal it can get which fits within some specific price limit (e.g. State subvention plus 10% County and 10% City). If that is the case, you should include your fiscal constraints within the RFP so that bidders all propose something which can at least needy be completed within the funding available. Otherwise a bid will essentially be of no value to you or to the firm submitting it. In doing this, you should clarify whether the Commission believes the current funding limitations are intended to apply only to Phase 1, to the entire set of Phases, or to some subset of phases.
65. You have asked in 2.1.2 for expenses to be included in the rates. As long as they are included within the fixed limit, do you care whether they are identified and bill for separately, or does the County actually require expenses to be built into the rates.
66. In 2.1.4 you have set what may be an unreasonable requirement for consultants to return all business calls within 24 hours. Unless you wish every consultant to be a full time consultant, you should clarify that the consulting group (as opposed to the individual consultant) shall return calls which are not specifically addressed to an individual consultant within a business day. With specialists involved, it is not normally productive for a water rights expert to return a call from a redevelopment agency official. We would suggest that this specificity be generalized to something like "prompt, responsive communications from study team participants*. As an aside, will LAFCO agree to place on itself to whatever constraint you do place on the consulting team?
67. In 2.2.3, you define as a major breach of the contracts any deviation in providing the individuals proposed in the proposal? There are three problems with this: First, we cannot control turnover, and the "breach' is probably intended to apply to individuals still with the company. We believe it should be so limited. Second not all consultants named in a proposal are key, and the County should limit this to those individuals it defines after proposal review as "key". Third, all firms propose those consultants who are available or expected to be available at the time of the proposal and then wait to see which clients select them. Thus, individuals are normally placed in multiple proposals. We believe that LAFCO would be best served if this provision applied only to the individuals agreed upon at the time of contract, and then only t key employees still in the employ of the selected firm.
68. We will take some exception to the confidentiality requirements, although these are comparatively minor.
69. We are a company wholly owned by a firm which also own companies who provide non-consulting services. We presume that the limits on competing for works with the City of Los Angeles and other related parties applies to providing consulting services to those entities or other services which could impact out bonuses, compensation, etc. Is this correct, or would the limits on doing business with entities impacted by this reorganization apply to all services?
70. We cannot accept the limitation clause (3.2.7) on doing business with impacted parties as currently written. It is fairly clear the City of Los Angeles and probably other parties as well will not view favorably the work of the consultant on this project and are likely to withhold the awarding of other contracts to the parties. Here, you are placing additional restrictions on the ability of a successful vendor to continue its normal business relationship with those entities. Also, the clause as written takes no notice of continuing existing business arrangements without LAFCO approval. We recognize the intent of the paragraph as limiting the ability of impacted entities to award contracts to the successful bidder as a means of enticing the contractor to recommend better "terms" to that party in this study. We suspect that you should simply not do business with any firm small enough to be so enticed, but if you must have such a clause, it needs to be much more reasonable. We would suggest the following:
"Any new business arrangement with the impacted parties (applicants/city) are concern to LAFCO to the extent that they may compromise or be viewed by the general public as compromising the integrity of this study. As a result, the successful firm(s) shall be precluded from providing similar services dealing with issues addressed by this contract to any of the three impacted entities. Existing contracts with impacted entities which are listed in your proposal are allowed to be extended without LAFCO review as long as the terms are the same plus CPI or other contractually allowed escalator. Ali proposals (or a copy of the RFP for any such proposal) for other consulting services shall be submitted to LAFCO. LAFCO shall review and within a two week period notify the contractor(s) that it deems the proposed work as creating an appearance of conflict. LAFCO's decision shall be binding on the contractor.'
As noted earlier we would like public entities or at least
public universities exempted from this
constraint for practical reasons.
71. As regards 3.2.4, we would need to limit this access as follows: "provided that access to personnel records shall be governed by applicable State laws."
72, As regards 3.8, "its" in the 6Th. line should be clarified by changing the word to "consultant's".
73. We do not believe that it is reasonable for us to pay for you to examine our records (3.1.1). We suggest that the contract provide instead that the County will maintain the records and consultants shall have access to them when reasonably needed. It seems to us that LAFCO is the entity with the longest range interest in the records, not the consultant which may change over the Phases.
74. We cannot accept provision 3.16.4 which provides unlimited liability for the contractor to pay for replacement contractors/LAFCO employees. Our greatest liability should be limited by monies paid to us for the project portions we completed,
75. In 3.18.3, termination for convenience of the County results in negotiating and amount to be paid to consultant. If termination is for convenience, a minimum amount due is for all fees and expenses incurred up to the point of termination. Any negotiation should be over profits lost through providing this convenience to the County,
76, The scope of the work as defined in the RFP identified processes or stages, but is silent as to the issues to be addressed. We believed that LAFCO's January report on the issues provided a solid foundation for the scope from and issues perspective, it is our opinion that LAFCO would receive better and more comparable proposals if it included some of all of that document (or any later revised version) as an appendix and asked bidders to bid to cover all issues therein. Bidder's who do not plan to address one or more of those issues should be required to so state, and any issues added to that list should be identified as such.
77. Does the RFP and contract need to cover issues potentially involved in a third (or 4'Th.) area qualifying for consideration (such as West LA)? If not, would the Commission later go through a bid process for such a third area or negotiate a price with the successful contractor for the Valley/Harbor analysis. Are the prohibitions listed in the contract for doing business with the City/Valley/Harbor analysis. Are the prohibitions listed in the contract for doing business with the City/Valley/Harbor also intended to apply to any entities which qualify in the future for consideration as part of the special reorganization as part of the special reorganization? It seems as if the intent of the RFP is to acquire resources for assistance to LAFCO in making decisions, and that we should be restricted to performing such services for LAFCO only.
To the ValleyVote home
page
To the LAFCO page